WI: Total Anglo-Saxon Conquest?

archaeogeek

Banned
That's not certain. The genetic studies remain ambiguous and have given results suggesting both (A) it was mainly a case of Anglo-Saxons acculturating Britons or (B) The Anglo-Saxons went further than we thought and almost all the "Welsh" population are mostly English by blood, being only culturally Brythonic. Which if anything just shows that DNA studies aren't trustworthy yet.

There is hard evidence for small communities of Britons living side by side with Anglo-Saxons until relatively late (for example, the small village of Wales near where I come from was a mediaeval Welsh community remaining in England) but anything more is just supposition.

The DNA studies have the problem that they can't go back far enough; most of them looked for people with 12 generations locally, but 12 generations ago there was a lot of welsh (and irish, since 12 generations is not even 4 centuries) emigration to England proper (even before; a lot of the people who joined up glyndwr's army were said to have been from the welsh areas outside wales proper). Well that and Oppenheimer, their author, is a) a fan of kooky linguistics (he believes a fringe theory where english split from german 3 or 4000 years ago, which makes no sense, the split is pretty well studied and visible at the time it happened) and b) apparently this particular genetic study in Britain has been panned in peer reviews.

And yes there were revolts, "their rulers resisted" is all we get for the basic reason that little history came of the people, and yet we do know of specifically welsh (and "cornish" for a certain (rather large) definition of Cornwall) revolts in the middle ages.

And Haplotypes are only a good indicator of ethnicity for very isolated groups, so could we please quit pretending there?
 
Last edited:
In any case, an England that is totally owned by Saxons and impostor 'Angles'{if they came from that God-forsaken piece of wasteland called Holstein, then why isn't East Anglia called West Anglia? Because there is no West Anglia OTL.}, is sure to be dystopic............but then again, I must admit, I do have a soft spot for certain dystopias{i.e. Decades of Darkness, etc.}.

:Rollseyes:

East Anglia was named such because it was east of the other Angle kingdoms in Britain (the Middle Angles and the South Angles).
 
And yes there were revolts, "their rulers resisted" is all we get for the basic reason that little history came of the people, and yet we do know of specifically welsh (and "cornish" for a certain (rather large) definition of Cornwall) revolts in the middle ages.

And Haplotypes are only a good indicator of ethnicity for very isolated groups, so could we please quit pretending there?
I'm aware of the Cornish rebellions of the Late Middle Ages, but my understanding is that they were not nationalistic in nature, and were no more frequent than revolts in the North, or Sussex, or what have you.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out their subject British populations, either through mass murder or expulsion.
If the Anglo-Saxons had conquered Wales and Cornwall (which they didn't for various reasons, but for the sake of the counterfactual we're assuming differently) they would have held them, as they did Wessex and Mercia and Cumbria and Clyde. That's all I'm saying.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'm aware of the Cornish rebellions of the Late Middle Ages, but my understanding is that they were not nationalistic in nature, and were no more frequent than revolts in the North, or Sussex, or what have you.
The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out their subject British populations, either through mass murder or expulsion.
If the Anglo-Saxons had conquered Wales and Cornwall (which they didn't for various reasons, but for the sake of the counterfactual we're assuming differently) they would have held them, as they did Wessex and Mercia and Cumbria and Clyde. That's all I'm saying.

Cumbria was not held, it was reconquered much later.
Wessex outside of a few late conquests was a settlement region.
"There is no evidence" - then why are regions of Britain entirely deserted at these periods? It doesn't need to be the anglosaxons, but they packed up and left. Layers from the sixth century are almost devoid of human life in the areas of earliest anglosaxon settlement.

They did take Wales and Cornwall. Many times. Over and over again. (also a revolt can have a basis on a perception of ethnic difference and mistreatment for it and still not be nationalist in nature: the prayer book revolts come to mind; the north also had a very significant norse and danish-originated minority too and a very distinctive dialect of english as a result). They also didn't "hold" the Clyde, it was assimilated in the middle ages; when it was annexed to Scotland the area was not anglosaxon or under anglosaxon authority, it was between two gaelic principalities and the Northumbrian province of Lothian.
 
Last edited:
So, just to be clear, your thesis is that Germanic peoples replaced the Romano-British people in England, rather than conquering and assimilating them? Excluding, obviously, British realms like Cumbria and Dumnonia that were conquered after Anglo-Saxon times?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
So, just to be clear, your thesis is that Germanic peoples replaced the Romano-British people in England, rather than conquering and assimilating them? Excluding, obviously, British realms like Cumbria and Dumnonia that were conquered after Anglo-Saxon times?

For the most part, I'd surmize that a if you took a line set at the eastern border of Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancaster, Cheshire, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Dorset (it would go through the west riding and Wiltshire in parts but for the sake of easy mapping :p ), the romanobritish remnant in today's England would have been insignificant after you put together disease, wars, massacres, etc. With the exception of some pockets in the Chilterns, the Pennines and the Fens. I'm also not saying there was only a replacement, it's obvious there was war and conflict and it's also obvious that both peoples did not tend to mingle (like I said, you can see the western british trade ports tied in to the mediterranean trade routes... you have 0 indications that the saxons traded significantly with anyone on the islands). I'm also saying that using Oppenheimer's population genetics thesis is basing it on a lambasted study and a monumental kook. There was a conquest, it was bloody, but it wasn't just that.

For one, if they had merely "integrated" the population, the language would show significantly more celtic loanwords: there are 60 and half of them come from Irish. Medieval English shows no hint of having had significantly more.
 
That's not certain. The genetic studies remain ambiguous and have given results suggesting both (A) it was mainly a case of Anglo-Saxons acculturating Britons or (B) The Anglo-Saxons went further than we thought and almost all the "Welsh" population are mostly English by blood, being only culturally Brythonic. Which if anything just shows that DNA studies aren't trustworthy yet.

There is hard evidence for small communities of Britons living side by side with Anglo-Saxons until relatively late (for example, the small village of Wales near where I come from was a mediaeval Welsh community remaining in England) but anything more is just supposition.

I should have explained myself more clearly. The Britons that remained in the east of Britain became part of the culture of the Saxon arrivals. The Germanic migrants did not have the means or desire to exterminate wholesale the indigenous population, nor the numbers to replace them, but simply became the new ruling class. Also, Saxon rulers like Cerdic may have partly descended from native British nobility.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I should have explained myself more clearly. The Britons that remained in the east of Britain became part of the culture of the Saxon arrivals. The Germanic migrants did not have the means or desire to exterminate wholesale the indigenous population, nor the numbers to replace them, but simply became the new ruling class. Also, Saxon rulers like Cerdic may have partly descended from native British nobility.

There were almost no britons in the east of Britain after the 5th century; there's almost no agriculture in the east in that period in any archaeological dig for the east, and none of the cities of the saxons correspond to the british cities except in areas that were conquered well after the saxon arrival (they're generally upriver or elsewhere or in some cases have never been refounded, like in the case of Venta Icenorum - in a few cases there's marks in the ruins that are found indicating the saxons saw them as cursed (duh, a few of them were probably depopulated by the justinian plague)). The west, however, shows a still relatively comfortable briton survival with serious trade links to the med. There's a point where a pattern stops being a fluke and begins to look like, yes, it's a pattern (and the same happens in a lot of areas of Jutland and the frisian coast, where areas of the coast looks like it was much less densely populated for about a generation in the 6th century, the post-Oppenheimer "only a few warriors moved" thing is not supported by either linguistics or archaeology, and like I said the genetic study has been panned in population genetics journals for many reasons, my objection about trying to figure out the demographics of the 8th century with demographics going only as far as the 17th being only one of them)
 
Last edited:
There were almost no britons in the east of Britain after the 5th century; there's almost no agriculture in the east in that period in any archaeological dig for the east, and none of the cities of the saxons correspond to the british cities except in areas that were conquered well after the saxon arrival (they're generally upriver or elsewhere or in some cases have never been refounded, like in the case of Venta Icenorum - in a few cases there's marks in the ruins that are found indicating the saxons saw them as cursed (duh, a few of them were probably depopulated by the justinian plague)).

Perhaps you could name your sources for this assertion. Quite frankly, I'm dubious about your claim that there were "almost no Britons and almost no agriculture(?)", considering that the Saxons and Britons largely lived off agriculture. As for the cities in Britain, they saw a decline in population in the late Roman period for reasons other than plague or warfare. Most rural Britons continued living the way of their ancestors before Roman rule, so their departure made no difference to them.

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, having grown prominent in Britain's commercial relations with with the departure of the Romans, would influence the cultural model for Britain from the 5th century onwards, along with the fact that the Franks also dominated on the other side of the Channel, and the spoken language of the powers-that-be on both sides becoming dominant on a economic and political level.


The west, however, shows a still relatively comfortable briton survival with serious trade links to the med. There's a point where a pattern stops being a fluke and begins to look like, yes, it's a pattern (and the same happens in a lot of areas of Jutland and the frisian coast, where areas of the coast looks like it was much less densely populated for about a generation in the 6th century, the post-Oppenheimer "only a few warriors moved" thing is not supported by either linguistics or archaeology, and like I said the genetic study has been panned in population genetics journals for many reasons, my objection about trying to figure out the demographics of the 8th century with demographics going only as far as the 17th being only one of them)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I need to fix my JSTOR access, but there's a number of journals for british archaeology I could dig up. When I say there's almost no agriculture it's not because they stopped, it's because they left, and no, the "influence in trade" is nowhere to be seen: there is very visible trade with the eastern empire in the british remnant, with Tintagel being potentially either a significant trading port or wealthier by having a lordly court there (probably the kings of Dumnonia for a time) while there is barely any trade with the saxons: no items from the imperial trade routes and no native briton productions, nothing, nada, zilch, and that goes both ways, except a few exceptions that are generally seen as either flukes or the result of pillaging. A lot of cities aren't just "less populated". They disappear entirely and are never resettled until centuries later and the new city is not on the old site either.

And it still explains nothing: a few warriors would have been assimilated in the population, as they were in France, Spain and (much smaller) Ireland. They didn't, at all, there's all of 60 celtic loanwords in english, half of which don't even come from old briton. They somehow assimilated a population that was largely christian and not only managed to suppress a language despite absurd claims of ridiculously low numbers but also stamped out christianity so hard that the country was back to being pagan by the 7th century, when none of the british remnant had returned to paganism.

If the minimalist invasion interpretation was in any way true, we'd be talking breton with a bunch of germanic loanwords, not the other way around.

There's a difference between "conquest was slower and less total than claimed before" and "only a few thousand anglosaxons somehow turned an entire established civilization a hundred to a thousand times more numerous than them into more of them, within a century". The romans would be jealous.
 
Last edited:
I need to fix my JSTOR access, but there's a number of journals for british archaeology I could dig up. When I say there's almost no agriculture it's not because they stopped, it's because they left, and no, the "influence in trade" is nowhere to be seen: there is very visible trade with the eastern empire in the british remnant, with Tintagel being potentially either a significant trading port or wealthier by having a lordly court there (probably the kings of Dumnonia for a time) while there is barely any trade with the saxons: no items from the imperial trade routes and no native briton productions, nothing, nada, zilch, and that goes both ways, except a few exceptions that are generally seen as either flukes or the result of pillaging. A lot of cities aren't just "less populated". They disappear entirely and are never resettled until centuries later and the new city is not on the old site either.

And it still explains nothing: a few warriors would have been assimilated in the population, as they were in France, Spain and (much smaller) Ireland. They didn't, at all, there's all of 60 celtic loanwords in english, half of which don't even come from old briton. They somehow assimilated a population that was largely christian and not only managed to suppress a language despite absurd claims of ridiculously low numbers but also stamped out christianity so hard that the country was back to being pagan by the 7th century, when none of the british remnant had returned to paganism.

If the minimalist invasion interpretation was in any way true, we'd be talking breton with a bunch of germanic loanwords, not the other way around.

There's a difference between "conquest was slower and less total than claimed before" and "only a few thousand anglosaxons somehow turned an entire established civilization a hundred to a thousand times more numerous than them into more of them, within a century". The romans would be jealous.


I'm not sure that you really understood my previous posts. When I said that the Saxons weren't numerous enough to replace the native Britons, what I meant was that it wasn't within their scope to destroy or uproot the pre-existing population. I neither said or implied in any way that the native Brit populace was so large as to critically outnumber them. I did, however, say that "England", that is to say within the parameters of what we know as England " was probably more than enough land for them".

Surely, there were some native rural communities in the southeast that were eventually incorporated into the Germanic fold, rather than the virtually vacant land area that you seem to be proposing. And of course, migrations from northern Europe did not happen over night. Indeed, the first Germanics arrivals in the Fifth Century may have lived seperately from the Britons in the southeast, only to assimilate the remaining communities later in the century.

As for the language issue, its worth considering that a Germanic limited Germanic presence existed in Britain as late as during the Roman occupation, in the form of Auxiliaries, mercenaries and slaves. And also, its known that the Belgae tribes had previously settled in the southeast as early as the 2nd century BCE. And when I mentioned the issue of trading, I thought it was obvious that I was speaking of the centuries after the Romans departed, with the Anglo-Saxons actively trading with similarly Germanic nations such as the continental Saxons, the Franks and Frisians, which could have strenghened its use locally, with the West Germanic dialect gradually outphasing the native British language on a political and economical level.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'm not sure that you really understood my previous posts. When I said that the Saxons weren't numerous enough to replace the native Britons, what I meant was that it wasn't within their scope to destroy or uproot the pre-existing population. I neither said or implied in any way that the native Brit populace was so large as to critically outnumber them. I did, however, say that "England", that is to say within the parameters of what we know as England " was probably more than enough land for them".

Surely, there were some native rural communities in the southeast that were eventually incorporated into the Germanic fold, rather than the virtually vacant land area that you seem to be proposing. And of course, migrations from northern Europe did not happen over night. Indeed, the first Germanics arrivals in the Fifth Century may have lived seperately from the Britons in the southeast, only to assimilate the remaining communities later in the century.

As for the language issue, its worth considering that a Germanic limited Germanic presence existed in Britain as late as during the Roman occupation, in the form of Auxiliaries, mercenaries and slaves. And also, its known that the Belgae tribes had previously settled in the southeast as early as the 2nd century BCE. And when I mentioned the issue of trading, I thought it was obvious that I was speaking of the centuries after the Romans departed, with the Anglo-Saxons actively trading with similarly Germanic nations such as the continental Saxons, the Franks and Frisians, which could have strenghened its use locally, with the West Germanic dialect gradually outphasing the native British language on a political and economical level.

I was also talking of post-roman trade. The trade routes with the mediterranean remained active well into the 7th century in the british regions. They got hit (hard if soils are any hint) by the Justinian plague, which the saxons mostly seem to have avoided. The insular Belgae were also not germanic; only 4 tribes of the Belgae were considered germanic and none of them are present in the islands. It also still doesn't give a worthy explanation of the absence of celtic loanwords in the presence of a supposedly germanic but less powerful population in Britannia that would somehow have been absorbed by the anglosaxons as germanic: it's at best a fringe theory. At worst it's kookery and relies on the idea that english as a language is a thousand years older than it observably, demonstrably is (with the split being visible thanks to writing). My objections for the very notion have all been listed earlier and I stand by them: it makes no sense that somehow a pagan people in the 7th century would have remained had they been natives of a province of the roman empire.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there was much of a Celtic presence in eastern Britannia. Maybe the land was either sparsely populated? I believe the Saxons picked up on quite a few Latin words when they arrived in Britain .
 
I was also talking of post-roman trade. The trade routes with the mediterranean remained active well into the 7th century in the british regions. They got hit (hard if soils are any hint) by the Justinian plague, which the saxons mostly seem to have avoided.

Even so, the Roman administration was gone, and succeeded by native British princes and the growing number of mostly Germanic Feoderati stationed in the southeast. Latin was the language of the literate, but was not known to the great majority of people in Britain, so native Britons would communicated in their dialect, and Germanic settlers in post-Roman Britain were under no pressure to adopt Latin or the native language. And as I mentioned before, continuous contact with other west Germanic societies across the Channel and North Sea would have preserved its integrity long enough. The Saxon, Angle, Jutish, and Frisian settlers would not have been cut-off from their relatives across the water. As time went on, the un-Romanized Saxons would have retained a strong identity from the socially neglected native population. And their original tradition of mercenary service to the Empire would have made them a formidable group in the region, compared to the poverty-stricken, over-taxed and thinly spread Britons.

The insular Belgae were also not germanic; only 4 tribes of the Belgae were considered germanic and none of them are present in the islands. It also still doesn't give a worthy explanation of the absence of celtic loanwords in the presence of a supposedly germanic but less powerful population in Britannia that would somehow have been absorbed by the anglosaxons as germanic: it's at best a fringe theory. At worst it's kookery and relies on the idea that english as a language is a thousand years older than it observably, demonstrably is (with the split being visible thanks to writing).

Granted about the Belgae, but you cannot ignore the long practice of Germanic auxiliaries and foederati in Britain, whom in the late period of Roman rule, could have become a prominent minority. Laying the groundwork for further Saxon migrations into Britain.

And again, the post-Roman era Germanic societies, with their strong sense of identity and mutual contacts, would not have required to pick up on the language of the subjected population. If the study published by the University College London is to be believed, the population of native Britons in the Fifth Century was around 2 million, while the Saxon influx may have been around 200,000. The southeast of England, perhaps the most geographically favourable part of Britian, would not bereft of the original inhabitants, but with their native identity in flux and suffering from internecine war, centuries of Roman rule and plague, its no wonder that a new, vibrant, and militarilly mobilized people would gradually overtake them.

My objections for the very notion have all been listed earlier and I stand by them: it makes no sense that somehow a pagan people in the 7th century would have remained had they been natives of a province of the roman empire.

I'm not sure what prompted the relevence of the Briton's Pagan roots, but Christianity had only been in power a relatively short time in the Roman Empire. And there were still regions where its influence was felt little, with the countryside of the western Empire remaining Pagan for a long time after Roman rule disappeared. The Church generally thrived in urban centres, and were of more use as bureaucrats and advisors to upper-level chieftians and kings, moreso to the majority of rural folk.
 
Last edited:
Top