Sexland, a Saxon England?

[Zorqal]

I wasn't quite sure how to phrase the title so forgive me for any confusion I may have caused.

Anyway, how could you get England to be known as Sexland/Saxland, based after the Saxons, rather than England a derivation of Angle-land?

I'm not to sure about the migration patterns of the time, but it probably would have something to do with that. Maybe you have Sexland/Saxland instead of England, and Anglia/Anglony in Europe to replace Saxony.

This wouldn't change much in history I would assume, especially if there is just a name change. If it requires migration changes, than that's an entirely different story.

 

[Urcea]

Wouldn't it just be Saxony, causing much confusion for school children down the road?

 

[Zorqal]

Wouldn't it just be Saxony, causing much confusion for school children down the road?

I think 'Saxony' came around later, and anyway, the foreigners and others naming the place would probably not name the same as the one's who named Saxony.

 

[LSCatilina]

Anyway, how could you get England to be known as Sexland/Saxland, based after the Saxons, rather than England a derivation of Angle-land?

The main difficulty is how divided were Saxons IOTL : Wessex, Middlesex, Essex, etc. They never formed a real united ensemble since their first settlements

Maybe you have Sexland/Saxland instead of England, and Anglia/Anglony in Europe to replace Saxony.

To replace? I don't think it would be possible : 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".

If Angles were a more powerful and important people in their own homeland, maybe Schleswig would be called England on the other hand.

This wouldn't change much in history I would assume, especially if there is just a name change.

Names doesn't pop up randomly : there's deep reason, critically for naming huge regions. Gaul because of Gauls, France because of Franks even if they didn't formed the majority of population (and never really went close of it) and eventually merged with it.

Now, England was named from Angles as the main kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon (at the notable and late exception of Wessex) were issued from their settlements : Northumbria and Mercia.
Furthermore, the usual way to distinguish continental Saxons (Saxones) from their insular counterpart was to use "Angli Saxones", leading to a larger use of Angles.

Eventually, making Angles of their kingdoms less important at the benefit of Saxons could have prevented the appearance of England, at least as used OTL, but wouldn't have been enough to make England called "Saxony", a distinctive name being needed : maybe Sexland or Sessland admittedly.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

I wasn't quite sure how to phrase the title so forgive me for any confusion I may have caused.

Anyway, how could you get England to be known as Sexland/Saxland, based after the Saxons, rather than England a derivation of Angle-land?

I'm not to sure about the migration patterns of the time, but it probably would have something to do with that. Maybe you have Sexland/Saxland instead of England, and Anglia/Anglony in Europe to replace Saxony.

This wouldn't change much in history I would assume, especially if there is just a name change. If it requires migration changes, than that's an entirely different story.

not to sound like a giggling schoolboy but people on the continent would be quite mean, I'm sure:

"Sexland: We're fucked and proud of it !"

 

[Marc Pasquin]

The main difficulty is how divided were Saxons IOTL : Wessex, Middlesex, Essex, etc. They never formed a real united ensemble since their first settlements


To replace? I don't think it would be possible : 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".

If Angles were a more powerful and important people in their own homeland, maybe Schleswig would be called England on the other hand.


Names doesn't pop up randomly : there's deep reason, critically for naming huge regions. Gaul because of Gauls, France because of Franks even if they didn't formed the majority of population (and never really went close of it) and eventually merged with it.

Now, England was named from Angles as the main kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon (at the notable and late exception of Wessex) were issued from their settlements : Northumbria and Mercia.
Furthermore, the usual way to distinguish continental Saxons (Saxones) from their insular counterpart was to use "Angli Saxones", leading to a larger use of Angles.

Eventually, making Angles of their kingdoms less important at the benefit of Saxons could have prevented the appearance of England, at least as used OTL, but wouldn't have been enough to make England called "Saxony", a distinctive name being needed : maybe Sexland or Sessland admittedly.

"Sessoiny" if there is a Normand influence ?

 

[Mike Stearns]

Wouldn't it just be Saxony, causing much confusion for school children down the road?

Sexland sounds more fun.

 

[LSCatilina]

"Sessoiny" if there is a Normand influence ?

Admitting that Normands aren't butterflied by the changes : maybe more somthing like Saissônie (in earlier Normand) or Saissony in Anglo-Norman.

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

F the Saxons. Why can't the Jutes get some love?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

F the Saxons. Why can't the Jutes get some love?

They already have Jutland!

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

They already have Jutland!

Which no one cares about except WWI nerds like me.

Why can't it be the Anglo-Jutes? Jute-Saxons?

 

[ramones1986]

"Sexland".

(Personally, I prefer Saxonland, but "Sexland" is pretty good,too. )

 

[LSCatilina]

Why can't it be the Anglo-Jutes? Jute-Saxons?

Because Jutes weren't nearly as much important than Angles kingdoms, not to speak of Saxons.

Eventually, the insular Jutes being absorbated by Saxons and Frisians (themselves absorbated by Saxons in the end) didn't helped.

 

[TFSmith121]

Puts a whole different gloss on the "no sex please,

we're British" meme...

Best,

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

Because Jutes weren't nearly as much important than Angles kingdoms, not to speak of Saxons.

Eventually, the insular Jutes being absorbated by Saxons and Frisians (themselves absorbated by Saxons in the end) didn't helped.

I don't care that much

 

[Zorqal]

But what if someone like Wessex managed to take most of what we would call England? Would that result in Sexland, which is by far the best name for it.

Maybe migration patterns change. A majority of Saxons come to Britain while most Angles stay in Holstein. The kingdom of Angland become strong in southern Denmark/ northern Germany, probably closely tied with the viking cultures. Various Saxon kingdoms are fighting for the British isles, only to be united once Ragnarr's vikings come. The Great Heathen Army probably wouldn't be born, as Aella (?) king of Northumbria would not exist, his family still on the continent. Some time later, the vikings settled in northern France, now known as Normans, invade Sexland. Saxeterre to the Normans? A language vaguely similar, but in no way the same, as English starts to come about from the mixing of Norman and Saxon.

Colonization happens, roughly the same time as OTL. Sexland grows similarly to England, colonizing roughly the same areas. Their colonies revolt some years later. An analog of the US, though probably not democratic, because John Locke is certainly butterflied. After that, I really don't know.

That sounds fairly plausible to me. Point out any glaring holes though.

 

[LSCatilina]

But what if someone like Wessex managed to take most of what we would call England? Would that result in Sexland, which is by far the best name for it.

Isn't what happened OTL? I mean, Wessex did dominated and absorbated other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, after having defeated Mercian overlordship in the IX century.

Maybe migration patterns change. A majority of Saxons come to Britain while most Angles stay in Holstein.

Why? The climatic changes and pauperisation of germanic societies touched as well (if not much) Angles as Saxons. Admittedly, you could end with a neighbouring people defeating and assimilating Angles, but you would have changed Angles migrations with *Jutes or something else.

Admittedly, with less Northern-Western Germans migrations, you would end with a greater Frisian/Jute importance (Procope ignored OTL Angles to name Franks and Frisians after all).

I think you didn't get the main reason why Saxons and land they settled weren't named only as Saxon-Land : there was an original and still important Saxony on the continent, and differenciating the insular divided kingdoms looked like a good idea even then.
If not "Angli Saxones", you could end with "Frisii Saxones" or even "Britanii Saxones" if you end with really pedentic clerks.

Eventually, the most distinctive part is likely to be retained or at least something indicating these are "particular" Saxons. Bretland would be a relativly likely possibility (but appearing quite late and as said, under the influence of religious and clerical elites), while a Saxon-based name could be admittedly be used for the southern part of the island (Sessland by exemple, or Sessia).

The Great Heathen Army probably wouldn't be born, as Aella (?) king of Northumbria would not exist, his family still on the continent. Some time later, the vikings settled in northern France, now known as Normans, invade Sexland. Saxeterre to the Normans?

A pre-Great Migrations PoD is likely to butterfly all of that. North Sea peoples would be virtually unrecognizable.
One exemple among many possibles, stronger Frisian presence in England would make their political and economical disappearing in the VIII (due to Frankish conquests OTL) far less likely, at least because their christianisation became a more probable outcome.

Without Frisians out, the North Sea economical control wouldn't be that much a vaacum, and Norses would have an harder time imposing themselves.

 

[The Sandman]

F the Saxons. Why can't the Jutes get some love?

Because sticking Jutland into Sexland makes this thread even dirtier.

 

[Zorqal]

Admittedly, with less Northern-Western Germans migrations, you would end with a greater Frisian/Jute importance (Procope ignored OTL Angles to name Franks and Frisians after all).

I think you didn't get the main reason why Saxons and land they settled weren't named only as Saxon-Land : there was an original and still important Saxony on the continent, and differenciating the insular divided kingdoms looked like a good idea even then.
If not "Angli Saxones", you could end with "Frisii Saxones" or even "Britanii Saxones" if you end with really pedentic clerks.

Eventually, the most distinctive part is likely to be retained or at least something indicating these are "particular" Saxons. Bretland would be a relativly likely possibility (but appearing quite late and as said, under the influence of religious and clerical elites), while a Saxon-based name could be admittedly be used for the southern part of the island (Sessland by exemple, or Sessia).


A pre-Great Migrations PoD is likely to butterfly all of that. North Sea peoples would be virtually unrecognizable.
One exemple among many possibles, stronger Frisian presence in England would make their political and economical disappearing in the VIII (due to Frankish conquests OTL) far less likely, at least because their christianisation became a more probable outcome.

Why would everything be different further north if the Angles and Saxons switch roles?

 

[AussieHawker]

All Hail the Sexland. And they can be known as the Sexers or Sexy