It is possible for a surviving anglo saxon britain be considered germanic?

IOTL there was talk of a "Saxon" alliance of the United States, Great Britain and Germany.

I'm also amazed that Pan-Germanists considered Ireland, Finland (I'm particular curious at why the Western coast of it is clearly denoted, but the rest is left in faint outline) and apparently two thirds of Mexico as Pan-Germanic territories. The fact Norway and Sweden are shown as one with apparently Finland attached while Mexico is not named and apparently is attached to the U.S. is also rather interesting.
If the map is 19th Century then for Sweden/Norway its correct. From 1814 till 1905 Norway was in union with Sweden so many external sources would just count the whole as Sweden. Finland was part of Sweden till 1809 ( war started by Russia which had been nibbling away since the 1740's) so that could be revanchism.
 
I think there's probably correctly a degree to which today Britain is considered to be culturally a bit more distinct from other nations speaking Germanic tongues than they are from each other.

This probably seems a bit culturally chauvinistic for me to say, and it's very hard to really demonstrate that, but in my defense there do seem to be differences which show up in attempts to measure 'culture' which don't aim to create this differentiation. Take this study on moral preferences for AI (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1059480292673634304) where there does seem be an English speaking cluster and a general Germanic cluster, in their tree. You also see some similar trend cropping up more weakly in the WVS data (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Inglehart_Values_Map.svg) although that's more of a weak clusterng (the "groups" being just lines drawn on the graph), and really expressed on a single axis, the Traditionalist vs Secular-Rational.

I don't think this is much to do with the language though. Seems like reflects differences in role in geopolitical history, philosophical tradition, role of government through welfare regimes and so on, where the UK is a bit more distinct and less part of the same cultural conversation. But these mostly reflect trends which had nothing much to do with the language, and weren't determined as long ago as Anglo-Saxon England.
 
I'm not sure if England is really considered particularly less Germanic than all others peoples or countries, maybe because Celtic languages lost a lot of ground the language portion is maybe less stressed or maybe the power of Britain in Europe and oversea made a world on its own compared to the continent, but like I said I'm not even sure this perception is even real.

England is western, english sounds very different from other germanic languages like German or Dutch.
 
England is western, english sounds very different from other germanic languages like German or Dutch.

So does Danish and Icelandic....

I think too many people on this thread incorrectly conflate "Germanic" with "German", when in many cases the latter is the odd man out of the former (e.g. name one Germanic language that exhibits consonant shifts to the degree and mechanism of Hochdeutsch's...don't worry, I'll wait :rolleyes:). Furthermore, there isn't a Pan-Germanic identity because (and I'm including Netherlander, Norse, and Afrikaner points of view here) THERE'S NEVER BEEN ONE taken seriously outside the Holy Roman Empire (and I guess the Third Reich). Ever.

EDIT; to address the OP, I think a non-Norman England could go either way in terms of having a notion of Germanicness IF they have a lasting and positive relationship with East Francia/ the HRE. I feel the most likely turnout is for England to represent a separate "strand" of Germanicness apart from Swabia/Bavaria/etc like the Netherlands has, possibly with or without Scandinavia included.
 
Last edited:
I'm also amazed that Pan-Germanists considered Ireland, Finland (I'm particular curious at why the Western coast of it is clearly denoted, but the rest is left in faint outline) and apparently two thirds of Mexico as Pan-Germanic territories. The fact Norway and Sweden are shown as one with apparently Finland attached while Mexico is not named and apparently is attached to the U.S. is also rather interesting.
I think that may just be how they made the map, if you look closely you can see the faint outline of France's coast as well.
 
Just as an FYI, there was a time when Ireland wasn't as fully associated with the Celtic Catholic identity as it is today. The ruling class was a Protestant Anglo-Irish "Germanic" culture and was seen as authentically Irish as white Americans are seen as authentically American.

The same is even more true of the Scots. The medieval Scottish state was created and run by the Lowlanders, an Anglo, Germanic people. The Celtic strains were as relevant to Scottish identity as the Cornish and Cumbric cultures are to the English today. It was only due to the influences of romanticism and a royal visit in the 1820s that the Celtic identity was tied back in. And then doubled down on in the age of Scottish nationalism since the 1970s, where they wanted to play up differences with the English.

What I find most interesting in the graphic is the way the Balts are included but the Czechs are not.
 
Now, this is pan germanist propaganda, if you showed this to anyone in britain, the US, Canada and especially in Ireland, they most likely would laugh a lot.

Also, let's notice how this map includes Ireland, the baltics and most of Mexico in the "Great Germanic Realm"

I'm also amazed that Pan-Germanists considered Ireland, Finland (I'm particular curious at why the Western coast of it is clearly denoted, but the rest is left in faint outline) and apparently two thirds of Mexico as Pan-Germanic territories.

Just as an FYI, there was a time when Ireland wasn't as fully associated with the Celtic Catholic identity as it is today. The ruling class was a Protestant Anglo-Irish "Germanic" culture and was seen as authentically Irish as white Americans are seen as authentically American.
As far as I have read, almost all Irish today speak Germanic English, while Celtic Irish is a vanishing minority language, so why should Ireland not be on a map showing Germanic-speaking lands?

The Western (and Southern) coast of Finland was where a sizable Swedish-speaking population lived.

And there might still be some English speakers in the US and Canada, or have these countries fully switched to another language?
 
I personally don't think we need a POD as far back as 1066 to achieve this. All what we need is an England which during the age of nationalism espouses a staunchly 'Anglo-Saxon' nationalist variety that solidly looks back to Anglo-Saxon England pre-1066. This ATL nationalism would be largely based on OTL thought, such as that of the 'Norman Yoke' and the Whiggish interpretation of history, which stated that Anglo-Saxon England was a kind of Garden-of-Eden liberal constitutional monarchy in which the Witangemot was England's first parliament, and that the Normans destroyed all that by imposing a foreign autocracy.

So what we need is an ATL English nationalism that emerges, say, in the long eighteenth century after the revolution of 1688 that is a reaction against French-backed Catholicism and Absolute Monarchy and could see Dutch support for that revolution and William of Orange as a sign of pan-Germanic (and Protestant) solidarity. This Anglo-Saxon revival, for it to permanently confirm England's place in the 'Germanic Club' would have to last continuously during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In addition to changing/ requiring a change of England's self image, literature and politics, I imagine that the following changes would be noticeable:
  • The mass re-adoption of Anglo-Saxon first names in England during such a period: Names such as William, Henry and George go into decline and normal English names become names like: Athelstan, Edgar, Elfgar for boys and Godgifu, Elfgifu for girls. Scandinavian names (very popular just before 1066) could also become the English norm, such as Sveyn and Bjorn, which would further 're-scandinavianise' England.
  • Indigenous English roots being used for new words that enter the language rather than importing Greek and Latin for say, modern concepts and technologies.
  • The use of Anglo-Saxon words for newly created political institutions - so that when, for example, the American Revolutionaries were creating their constitution, instead of using the word Senate, they use the Anglo-Saxon word 'Witan' to refer to their upper house. Likewise when County Councils are created in England in 1889, have them be called 'Shire Moots' instead.
If this Anglo-Saxon revival is as thorough and central enough to England's identity, then the two world wars, although shattering pan-Germanicism, would not be enough to undoe England's Germanic Identity, any more than it has made the Netherlands less Dutch post 1945.

But this TL would be quite interesting. It would mean that English/British nationalism would be pan-Germanic in nature and not Anti-continent, as in OTL.

A striking WI question would be how would such an English nationalism effect the other peoples of the British Isles. In OTL, German romantic nationalism in the Nineteenth Century was a key factor in inspiring the other nationalities of Central Europe and beyond to start asserting their own identities. If, in this TL, England asserts her Anglo-Saxonness, then I could easily see the Welsh asserting their Celtic-ness. In this TL, Wales would be more like Ireland and develop a nationalist movement of her own, which in OTL didn't really happen until the 1920s.

If this is the case, then I can see a Welsh TL where, in England, the OTL 18th Century Druid-mania is replaced with Anglo-Saxon Nationalism, and so the Druid movement, instead is largely Wales-only, and rather than being pan-British, becomes Welsh Nationalist by the 19th century. This is going off on a tangent, but in this ATL, the Chartist uprisings in South East Wales in the 1830s and 40s are, instead Welsh-nationalist uprisings like the 1798 one in Ireland, and their subsequent repression by the authorities and backlash against the Welsh Language (like the Austrian suppression of Hungarian post-1848) makes Wales and the Welsh public staunchly Welsh Nationalist by the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century, with a Home Rule movement dominating politics in the country.

So, this TL makes England more Germanic and Wales more Celtic.
 
Looking at that propaganda map...

Ireland is considered Germanic because of the English, Normans and Vikings, but France, which was literally founded by the Frankish Germanic tribes and shared a lineage of kings with the Germans, isn't? Okay. And did the Dutch Belgians just stop existing or what? And where are the Czechs? The Swiss?
 
Looking at that propaganda map...

Ireland is considered Germanic because of the English, Normans and Vikings, but France, which was literally founded by the Frankish Germanic tribes and shared a lineage of kings with the Germans, isn't? Okay. And did the Dutch Belgians just stop existing or what? And where are the Czechs? The Swiss?
What are you talking about? Flanders is shown there, also why the heck would France be more Germanic than Ireland in the 19th century? At least Ireland had English speaking communities and people coming directly from Great Britain.
 
What are you talking about? Flanders is shown there, also why the heck would France be more Germanic than Ireland in the 19th century? At least Ireland had English speaking communities and people coming directly from Great Britain.

Are those small squiggles supposed to be Flanders? My mistake, there.

And France is obviously Germanic in heritage and legacy. The French are a direct result of the Germanic Migrations into Gaul, a direct continuation of the Carolingian Empire and successor-kings who ruled over East, Middle and West Francia, as well as Lombardy and Bavaria. All Germanic realms. France also experienced the Viking Age and the influx of North Germanics from Scandinavia. France and the HRE's borders flowed back and forth for centuries, subsuming fellow Germanic polities like Burgundy, competing in the Low Lands, etc... And you can go even before that to Gaul, which has Germano-Celtic tribes like the Nervii and full-on Germanic tribes faffin about in Caesar's time.

Are you really going to say that Ireland is more Germanic because they were colonized by Germano-Celtic hybrids, when France itself is a Germanic hybrid? French is the most Germanic of the Romantic languages for a reason.
 
Are those small squiggles supposed to be Flanders? My mistake, there.

And France is obviously Germanic in heritage and legacy. The French are a direct result of the Germanic Migrations into Gaul, a direct continuation of the Carolingian Empire and successor-kings who ruled over East, Middle and West Francia, as well as Lombardy and Bavaria. All Germanic realms. France also experienced the Viking Age and the influx of North Germanics from Scandinavia. France and the HRE's borders flowed back and forth for centuries, subsuming fellow Germanic polities like Burgundy, competing in the Low Lands, etc... And you can go even before that to Gaul, which has Germano-Celtic tribes like the Nervii and full-on Germanic tribes faffin about in Caesar's time.

Are you really going to say that Ireland is more Germanic because they were colonized by Germano-Celtic hybrids, when France itself is a Germanic hybrid? French is the most Germanic of the Romantic languages for a reason.
Well all those influences date to about a millennia prior to the poster being made, in the mean time Ireland was far more influenced by Germanic speaking peoples, be they Vikings, Old English, English and plantations of Scots speakers.
 
I personally don't think we need a POD as far back as 1066 to achieve this. All what we need is an England which during the age of nationalism espouses a staunchly 'Anglo-Saxon' nationalist variety that solidly looks back to Anglo-Saxon England pre-1066. This ATL nationalism would be largely based on OTL thought, such as that of the 'Norman Yoke' and the Whiggish interpretation of history, which stated that Anglo-Saxon England was a kind of Garden-of-Eden liberal constitutional monarchy in which the Witangemot was England's first parliament, and that the Normans destroyed all that by imposing a foreign autocracy.

So what we need is an ATL English nationalism that emerges, say, in the long eighteenth century after the revolution of 1688 that is a reaction against French-backed Catholicism and Absolute Monarchy and could see Dutch support for that revolution and William of Orange as a sign of pan-Germanic (and Protestant) solidarity. This Anglo-Saxon revival, for it to permanently confirm England's place in the 'Germanic Club' would have to last continuously during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In addition to changing/ requiring a change of England's self image, literature and politics, I imagine that the following changes would be noticeable:
  • The mass re-adoption of Anglo-Saxon first names in England during such a period: Names such as William, Henry and George go into decline and normal English names become names like: Athelstan, Edgar, Elfgar for boys and Godgifu, Elfgifu for girls. Scandinavian names (very popular just before 1066) could also become the English norm, such as Sveyn and Bjorn, which would further 're-scandinavianise' England.
  • Indigenous English roots being used for new words that enter the language rather than importing Greek and Latin for say, modern concepts and technologies.
  • The use of Anglo-Saxon words for newly created political institutions - so that when, for example, the American Revolutionaries were creating their constitution, instead of using the word Senate, they use the Anglo-Saxon word 'Witan' to refer to their upper house. Likewise when County Councils are created in England in 1889, have them be called 'Shire Moots' instead.
If this Anglo-Saxon revival is as thorough and central enough to England's identity, then the two world wars, although shattering pan-Germanicism, would not be enough to undoe England's Germanic Identity, any more than it has made the Netherlands less Dutch post 1945.

But this TL would be quite interesting. It would mean that English/British nationalism would be pan-Germanic in nature and not Anti-continent, as in OTL.

A striking WI question would be how would such an English nationalism effect the other peoples of the British Isles. In OTL, German romantic nationalism in the Nineteenth Century was a key factor in inspiring the other nationalities of Central Europe and beyond to start asserting their own identities. If, in this TL, England asserts her Anglo-Saxonness, then I could easily see the Welsh asserting their Celtic-ness. In this TL, Wales would be more like Ireland and develop a nationalist movement of her own, which in OTL didn't really happen until the 1920s.

If this is the case, then I can see a Welsh TL where, in England, the OTL 18th Century Druid-mania is replaced with Anglo-Saxon Nationalism, and so the Druid movement, instead is largely Wales-only, and rather than being pan-British, becomes Welsh Nationalist by the 19th century. This is going off on a tangent, but in this ATL, the Chartist uprisings in South East Wales in the 1830s and 40s are, instead Welsh-nationalist uprisings like the 1798 one in Ireland, and their subsequent repression by the authorities and backlash against the Welsh Language (like the Austrian suppression of Hungarian post-1848) makes Wales and the Welsh public staunchly Welsh Nationalist by the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century, with a Home Rule movement dominating politics in the country.

So, this TL makes England more Germanic and Wales more Celtic.


Lovely idea, perfect. We can close this thread now, you nailed it.

Looking at that propaganda map...

Ireland is considered Germanic because of the English, Normans and Vikings, but France, which was literally founded by the Frankish Germanic tribes and shared a lineage of kings with the Germans, isn't?

France was the number 1 enemy of pan germanism, maybe that is why they didn't included it.
 
Germanic does not mean German, first of all.

Secondly, in terms of linguistics, it is generally agreed upon that English was, is, and will continue to be a Germanic language. We have much more in common with Dutch, Frisian, and German than say Spanish, French, or Italian. Angles were Germanic, Jutes were Germanic, Saxons were Germanic, the Norse tribes were Germanic, it stands to reason that thus the modern English are also Germanic, just not in the “continental” sense. I think if you remove the Norman influence on English history and have the Danelaw play a much bigger role, then we would be able to see a more “continental” mindset in the average Briton. Maybe have England stay a collection of petty kingdoms, perhaps?
 
Given the amount of Celtic (apparently only a linguistic groups that was created over unrelated groups) influences, I think there would be be plenty to make the language sufficiently separate from whatever the Germans end up with. I also imagine there may still be French influences to English, though not as far as it went today. It is probably people would use English as the name rather than Anglo-Saxon.
 
This talk about "why isn't France Germanic?" is pretty silly, guys. France is obviously not considered Germanic on this map because its primary and sole official language is not a Germanic one.

Given the amount of Celtic (apparently only a linguistic groups that was created over unrelated groups) influences, I think there would be be plenty to make the language sufficiently separate from whatever the Germans end up with.

Are you talking about English? Because Celtic influences on English are negligible (and if anyone wants to say the words "John McWhorter", he's not accepted in mainstream English linguistics), much less so than even in French.

And where did this forum suddenly get the idea that Celtic is a nonsense classification? People: the fact that the distinctions between Iron Age tribes were blurred occasionally does not mean that "Celtic" is not a valid classification in linguistics. It is. It's a language family. Its languages are descended from a single reconstructible common ancestor which other nearby languages can't be traced back to. That common language has sound changes which don't occur in other branches of the same macrofamily. There is such a thing as Celtic.
 
Last edited:
Top