Saxons don't go to England but elsewhere in Europe.

ar-pharazon

Banned
So a major event in late antiquity and post Roman Europe was the Saxon migrations to Britain.

What if the Saxons, angles, and Jutes had instead settled say modern day north France or Belgium?

Perhaps fighting or displacing the inhabitants therof?

How can we have the Saxon migrations be directed elsewhere?

And what would the long term consequences of this be?
 

Deleted member 97083

Since they were not very Romanized in comparison to the Goths and Franks, then any place that the Saxons settle would probably have Germanic-derived law and language. Probably not religion, but who knows.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I do think a Saxon Baltic region(at least partially) would be fascinating.

It would leave the Romano-Britain's in relative peace(assuming no other tribe attempted to invade) and would change the culture of Eastern Europe a millennium before the Teutonic Knights and push east by the HRE.
 
They could go east to what is now Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.
They could, but why would they? The eastern Baltic region was poor and had little of value besides amber, which isn't going to be all that valuable with the Amber Road cut off.
 
I'll requote my post from that thread as it still applies:
The Jutes homeland is somewhat vaguer that that of the Angles since even Bede didn't place them in Jutland but on the "other side of the Angles" to the Saxons. This could be Jutland but if the Saxons are slightly more southeast of the Angles the Jutes could easily be southwest of the Angles.
At any point it's clear the Jutes settled Britain from across the Channel rather than the North Sea like the Angles and no Jutes are found to be north of the Angles in Britain. I hold to the Euthiones theory which has the Jutes living under Frankish overlordship before the migration and not in Jutland. That is, if they were originally from Jutland they moved out into the continent beforehand.

I've always had the idea of a Germanic Brittany. This where because the Britons hold out longer they don't migrate to Armorica to become the Bretons. This means the area is free for any excess Saxons on the southern British coast or continentals in migration and so forms the basis of a Wessex on the continent.

Another idea is a weaker northern Gaul. This means the Franks push to the Seine earlier and so the northern Rhine is free for the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons to settle. Since the Jutes are always counted as smaller in number than the others they could be absorbed into the Franks and Angles. Settlement of Britain is still possible but would be far smaller than OTL - the Eastern fens is probably still Angle but also probably the northern most settlement, there may even be Frankish settlement of the area around the Isle of Wight.
On the continent I see Brittany-Normandy-Loire as Frankland (more so than OTL), the Low Countries as Saxonland (more west than OTL), and Angleland west of the Elbe (where the continental Saxons stayed OTL).
Language wise this will be very interesting. OTL the continental Saxons ended up Irminonic and the Franks either adopted a variety of Gallo Romance (albeit influenced by their Istvaeonic speech) or kept it dep which side of the Rhine they were on. TTL the Angles will become Irminonic and likely indistinguishable from OTL Saxons there, the Franks stay Istvaeonic but influenced by Romance (Mega Flemish?), and the Saxons might end up like Ingvaeonic equivalents of the Dutch, Flemish, and other (low) Franconian speakers.
Have a think of the permutations of each group creating a Carolingian Empire!
 
Top