WI: The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes went east into the Baltic?

What if the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes failed to conquer a large foothold in Britain, so they migrated the other direction, settling the lands east of the Elbe? As far as I know this area was partially vacated by Germanic tribes migrating into the Roman Empire, and quickly settled by West Slavs.

Let's say that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes topple the Veneti and take over or establish hill forts along the Elbe, Oder, and Vistula. Anglo-Saxon statelets form similar to those in Sub-Roman Britain. Also, there is interaction with West Slavic confederations (like the Obotrites) that form more quickly in response to the new threat.

How would proto-"England" develop differently being so close to Old Saxony itself, with reduced influence from Rome and Roman infrastructure, and also with a Slavic instead of Celtic substrate to Old English? How is Poland going to develop differently, as well, if it still exists?
 
Well, first thing first, the traditional division between Angles, Saxons and Jutes is historiographical : while people from these groups settled in Britain, they didn't do so as defined peoples. "Angles" as a name for people in England is only recorded in the VIIIth century. We are likely talking about disparate groups from Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Frisians, Franks, Danes, Norses coming into a destructurated Britain in the Vth from either the original homeland of these peoples, or the various settlements that existed due to other migrations in Frisia and Gaul, motivated by worsening meteolorogical and political situation (Scandinavia went into crisis with the fall of Romania)

In spite of the crisis that late Roman Britain knew (both due to Gaelic/Pictish raids, and a social/economical fall), it was still leagues better than going East where arguably territories were relatively empty (but so were parts of Britain) but there was a reason why Germanic peoples leaved these regions to begin with : there was few traces f agricultural production (which was compensated trough trade with Rome up to the late IVth century, and of course not something going to happen now), meaning really beginning from scratch while still likely to suffer Danish and Saxon raids.

Admitting that they still go there (and frankly, even if Britain is unavaible, I'd still expect coastals establishment like IOTL in Gaul in Britain nevertheless), they wouldn't form sub-kingdoms as easily : IOTL it was possible in Britain to go trough a quick evolution on this regard because they mixed with native population on relatively ancient limits. Jutish kings didn't claimed being King of Jutes, but King of the inhabitants of Cantium, which gave Kent. In a Baltic establishment, again, it's about beginning from scratch.
You'd argue, legitimately, that Wendish peoples as Veleti did managed to pull it (altough they didn't formed quickly sub-kingdoms, at the contrary) but in this regard they did formed relatively homogeneous groups.

It's very likely that these German settlers would be swallowed up in a greater Old Saxony at term, maybe from the VIIth century onwards, as were Euthiones (a Jutish group that did settled in the region). It does have interesting consequences, albeit limited, but it's not enough IMO for a England in Germania.
 
It's rather simplistic to imply the direction of the migrations were arbitrary.
Also it wasn't the case that the german tribes simply left land empty for slavs to fill.
There's a lot of pressures and the like and the North Sea was an easy escape route, couple that with westward pushes from the steppes and southward pushes from Scandinavia and you can see heading west is much easier to do. We can compare these migrations with the later Norse ones which likewise had much stronger western branches than eastern.

Going with your premise of Angles in Poland what you'd see depends on how much settlement the Slavs do.
 
I'd still expect coastals establishment like IOTL in Gaul in Britain nevertheless)
There is probably some Anglo-Saxon settlement (nebulous as the term may be) in Britain but maybe it could "disappear" like in Northern Gaul. It could be significant for a few decades but then be absorbed by the larger population. Maybe there is only a "Jutish" kingdom in Kent with the rest being Romano-Briton ruled polities.

they wouldn't form sub-kingdoms as easily : IOTL it was possible in Britain to go trough a quick evolution on this regard because they mixed with native population on relatively ancient limits. Jutish kings didn't claimed being King of Jutes, but King of the inhabitants of Cantium, which gave Kent. In a Baltic establishment, again, it's about beginning from scratch.

It's very likely that these German settlers would be swallowed up in a greater Old Saxony at term, maybe from the VIIth century onwards, as were Euthiones (a Jutish group that did settled in the region). It does have interesting consequences, albeit limited, but it's not enough IMO for a England in Germania.
Well, if the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al. don't form sub-kingdoms and instead join into a larger confederation similar to the Obotrites, their identity could solidify in response to German expansion later on. East Franks and Germans had difficulty subduing the area east of the Elbe for a long time. Avars would also present a significant pressure and influence along with the Slavic interaction. We could also see more Geatish migration, adding more North Germanic elements to make it more "foreign" for the East Franks.

Based on that, a "New Saxony" could well develop a sufficiently different identity, like the differences between Sweden and Denmark, to make it separate from other West Germanic entities. Then it's basically a radically different Poland.

If it fails to create a separate identity from Old Saxony, though, that too still has a big effect. If it's conquered by the Franks on the same timeline as the original Saxony, then the Holy Roman Empire will be substantially more powerful and the Ostsiedlung much more extensive, with a starting point farther to the east.

We can compare these migrations with the later Norse ones which likewise had much stronger western branches than eastern.
While generally assumed due to the presence of the Danelaw, this may not be the case. According to Wladyslaw Duczko in Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, there was a higher number of items of Scandinavian material culture in the east than in the west, probably indicating a heavier Norse presence overall.

Rus' was also larger in terms of absolute size than the Norse territories in the west, even if no part of it was completely assimilated.
 
Last edited:
There is probably some Anglo-Saxon settlement (nebulous as the term may be) in Britain but maybe it could "disappear" like in Northern Gaul. It could be significant for a few decades but then be absorbed by the larger population. Maybe there is only a "Jutish" kingdom in Kent with the rest being Romano-Briton ruled polities.
Thing is, Gaul is ruled by a relatively strong state, compared to Britto-Romans polities : Frankish hegemony in Gaul didn't made disappear Armorican Saxons (we have specific mentions up to Carolingians), but it did put them under a rug and may have motivated some south/north migration or at the least demotivated further settlement in Gaul.
Even if, for some reason, Scandinavian and North-West Germanic peoples doesn't settle in most of Britain (and we should find a place where Scandinavians at least settle instead), the Channel itself is going to recieve a significant migration, because it was an obvious way.

Well, if the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al. don't form sub-kingdoms and instead join into a larger confederation similar to the Obotrites, their identity could solidify in response to German expansion later on.
That"s unlikely : I mentioned Euthiones earlier that were a Jutish group settling along Saxons in the continent : they were quickly integrated within Saxons because all these peoples weren't really quite differenciated either linguistically or materially. Especially when it comes to heterogenous familial groups settling in relatively few numbers (remember that early medieval Britain isn't really a demographic powerhouse, to say the least), they are likely going to be integrated in a Saxon or Thuringian ensemble at best as its periphery.
Arguably, I forgot about Thuringia in my above post, which I shouldn't have giving their known proximity with both Saxons from one hand, and with Angli and Varini in the other hand. It's equally likely that Thuringians would get the upper hand on Anglians/Jutish/Saxonic groups on the other side of the Elbe.

East Franks and Germans had difficulty subduing the area east of the Elbe for a long time.
That's debatable how much they didn't : we simply don't have much sources on it, except the area was poorly inhabited until Wendes kicked in and merged with the remaining population. At the very least, arguing that before Wendish migrations the area was badly controlled is entirely speculative.

Avars would also present a significant pressure and influence along with the Slavic interaction.
Not this much north of the Pannonian plain : wjile Avars mostly formed Slavic chiefdoms at its limits, it never really went besides the Carpathians or Bohemian mountains IOTL.

We could also see more Geatish migration, adding more North Germanic elements to make it more "foreign" for the East Franks.
Foreigness is a bit of a non-problem : Franks mostly managed to integrate into their German sphere of influence a variety of peoples : Bavarians, Thuringians, Alamans, etc. and at times Saxons and Jutes in England. Of course, the appearance of Eastern Franks is a much later event, that might not happen ITTL giving the PoD (altough I agree that it's not particularily butterfliable as such, we're talking of the situation in the 500's-700's and not 850's).
As for a more important Gaetish (probably Danish in this context) migration : again, the obvious way is Britain, not Baltics. But even if it was, well, it would happen the same thing that with Scandinavian elements in VIth century England, they would get merged with North-Western Germans because the differenciation at this point shouldn't be exaggerated. TTL Saxony would be remarkably similar to IOTL Saxony in last analysis.

If it's conquered by the Franks on the same timeline as the original Saxony, then the Holy Roman Empire will be substantially more powerful and the Ostsiedlung much more extensive, with a starting point farther to the east.
Carolingian takeover is far from being obvious, ITTL (without talking about Ottonians and HRE), so I think we'll stick to the VIth to VIIIth centuries : Saxony was half-part of the Merovingian sphere, at least in its periods of greater hegemny (half of the VIth, half of the VIIth) and it did have an impact on characterisation (politically wise) of the region. While I wouldn't see a Merovingian conquest of the whole of Saxony ITTL either (although they did took some part of Saxony IOTL), I'd suspect that Thuringia would still befall to Merovingians ITTL including their periphery on the other side of the Elbe.

According to Wladyslaw Duczko in Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, there was a higher number of items of Scandinavian material culture in the east than in the west, probably indicating a heavier Norse presence overall.
It could as well be because of a better cultural mixing-up and acculturation : Danelaw England had significants finds of Scandinavian material culture, but we know that Anglo-Scandinavian people was composed in a very large part of Anglo-Saxon population.
 
Top