WI: More Saxon Migration to the British Isles in the 6th Century

I was reading an old thread about the plausibility of "Sexland" when I came across an interesting tidbit of information:

LSCatilina said:

the bulk of Saxons never left continental North Sea in first place : you had Saxons in both part of the sea and it was clear for everyone, as continental Saxony was the original one, that it would be this part that would recieve the name of "Saxony".

Click to expand...

So, what happens if more Saxons, say nearly three-quarters of the Saxons on the Continent, migrated over to the British Isles in the 6th Century?

Well, having Saxons really get out of IOTL Old Saxony is doable, and I don't think you even need the 3/4 of the population to do that.

Let's say we accept the overall validity of the Daner legendarium of the Vth century (which is itself not too far-fetched) : have Dani and Gaeti (possibly Iuti as they were repelled before) advance further than IOTL and really take on Old Saxony whom people partially leave and join up with other peoples :

- Eucii, that probably are part of repelled Iuti IOTL, and that would be more powerful than IOTL (tough still possibly under Frankish hegemon)
- Frisii, admittedly very close
- Anglii, as it was partially the case IOTL
- Saxons already settled in Gaul (modern Normandy, possibly lower Loire's valley)
- Saxons already settled in Britain (Saxon Shore and newcomers of the eastern shore)

The Saxon presence in Britain wouldn't need to be that increased, the point being having less continental Saxon presence, one that should merge with other peoples at middle term.

Eventually, it may be a case for calling germanic settled Britain or at least a part of it as an equivalent for Saxony (Saxenland?).

Another reason to not call for 3/4 of the continental Saxons would be the sheer logistical nightmare of such a migration, if even realistic in first place.
But let's admit that this new migration involves enough numbers to really change demographics there.

The already established chiefdoms would certainly benefit from it and it could be enough to make more stable and structured first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, preventing them to shatter as germanic presence advance North-West (meaning possible NW/SE border orientation of the germanic chiefdoms?).

It could mean earlier appearance of what is sometimes called a cyclical chiefdom (basically a statelet getting temporary overlordship over dominee statelets) but how this earlier structuration would affect Romano-Britons and their own structure is really hard for me to guess.

I suspect, though, that an increased number of Saxons joining with the former Saxon Shore and most likely Germanic presence in southern-western Britannia could see an earlier rise of a statelet as Wessex and eventually a more important germanisation of the region.

The more important presence of Saxons in the other side of the Channel may bolster even more the relationship between them, which would most definitely benefit to the Frankish hegemony (maybe a stronger Seine-Neustria basin, with a greater Frankish political influence on Wessex, similar to the one on Essex and Kent?)

I struggle to believe that most of the Angles came to Britain either. It just seems logistically possible.

It would have been amusing if more had settled in northern regions, creating a kingdom of Nossex.

Socrates said:

I struggle to believe that most of the Angles came to Britain either. It just seems logistically possible.

Click to expand...

It's less a logistical (even if it's a part of the problem) than a structural issue. First germanic settlers in Britain were mercenaries : not whole population

Furthermore, a full-scale migration would have implied enough political and social structure in original Anglia to simply organize it. Such chiefdoms should have survived the sea crossing, but it appears that all Anglian chiefdoms/petty-kingdoms were created in Britain while not having a transmaritime origin.
That plaid for disorganized or at least extremly decentralized migrations that weren't structurally fit for a total wipe-out of Schleswig.

The absence of archeological demonstration of a depopulation of the region doesn't fare well for this hypothesis as well, with the remaining Angli population probably absorbated eventually by Danes (as it was current for other peoples to be absorbated by their neighbours. I don't really see why they would be the exception)

Eventually the mythos of "entiere population migrated" is essentially based on a early medieval historiography where references to Bible and Roman classics was predominant.
Bede makes no mystery that he explain the coming of Anglo-Saxons as a providential (litteraly) feature. He then goes to compare Angles and Saxones migration with Hebrews coming all to the new Promised Land, Britain.

One should be at the very least be cautious about claims of whole populations simply leaving as one group and letting only token remnants.

Let's not forget that according to DNA evidence Kent remained populated by Cymric people in spite of the ascendancy of Jutish overlords. So for Kent to have become Jutish, there would have had to have been a lot more people in Jutland to start off with. How and why did Jutland become so crowded?

I'm not sure Cymric is the best name for the involved populations. Britto-Romans may be more fit, as to pointout the metissed late and Post-Roman culture there.
Anyway.

I'm not sure you'd be able to have a total genetic takeover, the model being everywhere about a more or less important structure created by the once settled population being a social and political "magnet".
For population being more Jutish, you don't need them to be more ethnically so at first, but simply being more "attractive" (meaning you can have Saxons identifying themselves as Jutes after a while).

The problem of Vth century Jutland, or Germanic regions as a whole, is less the demography than the destructurisation and pauperisation that followed the fall of Rome. Eventually, you'd have peoples chased of (as were Iuti) and it would be far easier to just have Danes or Northern Germanic peoples being a more important pressure on Western Germanic peoples.

As LS said an increased Saxon presence does seem likely to mean an earlier prominence of a Wessex. It would also likely impact the formation of Mercia which was a bit of a melting pot of Angle and Saxon chiefdoms - we could see more of an opposition between Angle and Saxon nomenclature ie those under Northumbrian influence going by Angle and those under "Wessex" going by Saxon. I also think Jute may become a byword for "Frankish Saxons". Especially if the pause of Saxon expansion northwestward occurs thus shifting Saxon settlement to the southern Saxon Shore of Francia - thus giving the spectacle of both Saxon Shores mirroring each other, with Brython west and Saxon east