WI: Vortigern never invites Saxons to Britian?

If Vortigern, leader of the Britons had never invited the Saxons to England to fight off the Picts and the Irish, what do you think would have ahppened to the Saxons and Britain, would the Saxons have come once the place was overrun or would they just stay in Germany? Also, if any of these facts are wrong I am reading the "The Age of Arthur: a History of Britain from 350-650", which might be outdated.
 
There is a fair amount of evidence 'Germans' were present in eastern Britain during much of the Roman occupation. This thread presents some of the arguments & sources:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131482&highlight=Saxons

To summarize proto Frisians or coastal Low Germans had been migrating to Britain during the 4th Century or earlier. The arguments for this point to archeological evidence showing the artifacts of the eastern region are predominatly of a Germanic style vs the Romano Britainic style. The Saxons, Angels, & Jutes were relative latecomers in this migration & the only "tribe" or war bands whos names were clearly recorded.

Assuming all this is correct then the Saxons themselves may not have been a key player in the subjugation of post Roman Britain but just the last suspect identified at the scene of the crime. However it is possible that without that late post Roman wave of Germanic invaders or migrants the Roman/Britainic culture would have survived in at least half of Britain, or perhaps even eventually asorbed a Germanic population that was not growing from immigration.

In that case the modern Britainic language might be a Celtic influenced Romance language and the grammar & vocabulary forms of modern English existing only in a few Frisian villages along the North Sea coast.


would the Saxons have come once the place was overrun or would they just stay in Germany?

The bulk of the 'Low Germans' who included the Saxons spread south into what is modern Germany. Thats were we have the Germany province "Saxony" from. Those who crossed the sea to the British Isles seem to have been a small part of that general expansion.
 
Last edited:
There is a longer term view that, during the last interglacial advance communities retreated to shelter behind the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Once the ice retreated they followed the retreat. The Pyreneeans followed the west coast beyond Brittany to Ireland and the west coast of Britain.

The Alpines followed the Rhone valley and settled the low countries, Scandinavia and the east coast of Britain as part of (later flooded) 'Doggerland'.

Thus the western group are the Prythonic and the eastern German so not only would the eastern tribes of Britain be Germanic but still in regular contact and exchange with their Doggerland cousins across the German Ocean. The tales of battles between locals and invaders from across the German Ocean demonstrate that they could readily exchange insults so the languages must have been close enough to be mutually intelligible.

Today a Dane and Norwegian can swap insults even if there is a lot of 'eh what?' 'pardon?' in a normal conversation.

So the short answer to the question is that the 'Saxons' were already there, hence the Roman defences were called after the local coastal population just as they were on the continental coast. The 'Saxon Shore' is the shore of the Saxons.

Polite society learned to speak and write Latin etc. Hence that fine middle class Briton Patrick could readily become a cleric.

The peasantry spoke and behaved much as they always had done. After hundreds of years of English culture plenty of Welsh speak Welsh and some as their first language. The fine, sadly late, F1 driver Tom Pryce was not a sparkling English PR performer because his first language was Welsh. There are television channels in Welsh and Scots Gaelic so Germanic languages would have had no problem surviving the Romans.
 
There is a longer term view that, during the last interglacial advance communities retreated to shelter behind the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Once the ice retreated they followed the retreat. The Pyreneeans followed the west coast beyond Brittany to Ireland and the west coast of Britain.

The Alpines followed the Rhone valley and settled the low countries, Scandinavia and the east coast of Britain as part of (later flooded) 'Doggerland'.

Thus the western group are the Prythonic and the eastern German so not only would the eastern tribes of Britain be Germanic but still in regular contact and exchange with their Doggerland cousins across the German Ocean. The tales of battles between locals and invaders from across the German Ocean demonstrate that they could readily exchange insults so the languages must have been close enough to be mutually intelligible.

Today a Dane and Norwegian can swap insults even if there is a lot of 'eh what?' 'pardon?' in a normal conversation.

So the short answer to the question is that the 'Saxons' were already there, hence the Roman defences were called after the local coastal population just as they were on the continental coast. The 'Saxon Shore' is the shore of the Saxons.

Polite society learned to speak and write Latin etc. Hence that fine middle class Briton Patrick could readily become a cleric.

The peasantry spoke and behaved much as they always had done. After hundreds of years of English culture plenty of Welsh speak Welsh and some as their first language. The fine, sadly late, F1 driver Tom Pryce was not a sparkling English PR performer because his first language was Welsh. There are television channels in Welsh and Scots Gaelic so Germanic languages would have had no problem surviving the Romans.
The same people who said that, also said that Southern France was already Italic not celtic before the time Ceasar invaded Gaul.
 
There is a longer term view that, during the last interglacial advance communities retreated to shelter behind the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Er, what about some perspective?

  • The last glacial retreat started around 10,000 BC.
  • The Roman conquest of Britannia took place in the 1st century AD.
  • The people of the Saxons were most likely "founded" by many smaller Germanic tribes ganging together around the 3rd century AD.
  • Roman retreat from the island and the Anglo-Saxon invasion date from the 5th century AD.

So whatever we might speculate about migration patterns in millennia of the remote past, what for the sake of Odin's earwax has that to do with the question at hand?
 
There is a fair amount of evidence 'Germans' were present in eastern Britain during much of the Roman occupation. This thread presents some of the arguments & sources:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131482&highlight=Saxons

[...]
Assuming all this is correct then the Saxons themselves may not have been a key player in the subjugation of post Roman Britain but just the last suspect identified at the scene of the crime.


Interesting hypothesis, thanks for pointing that out!
Unfortunately, it's not very easy to find actual references in the thread to which you linked; many postings there contain questionable statements.

Nevertheless, the presence of a Germanic population in Roman and post-Roman Britain seems very much plausible. However, it is clear that the province was ruled by Romans in the 3rd century - even in so far it was not Roman Emperors but rather Roman warlords or Roman would-be-Emperors-with-Britain-as-their-power-base. Consequently, all the Germanic tribes or people that were living in Britain were there either as subject peoples, or, much more probably, as a non-seclusive part of the Celtic-Roman population and intermarrying with them.

It is very much doubtful if a separate identity of these people still existed on the advent of the Anglo-Saxons, and if so, why they should have contributed in any way to the conquest.
 
Interesting hypothesis, thanks for pointing that out!
Unfortunately, it's not very easy to find actual references in the thread to which you linked; many postings there contain questionable statements.

Questionable statements on a internet discussion board, thats difficult to understand :confused:

Nevertheless, the presence of a Germanic population in Roman and post-Roman Britain seems very much plausible. However, it is clear that the province was ruled by Romans in the 3rd century - even in so far it was not Roman Emperors but rather Roman warlords or Roman would-be-Emperors-with-Britain-as-their-power-base. Consequently, all the Germanic tribes or people that were living in Britain were there either as subject peoples, or, much more probably, as a non-seclusive part of the Celtic-Roman population and intermarrying with them.

It is very much doubtful if a separate identity of these people still existed on the advent of the Anglo-Saxons, and if so, why they should have contributed in any way to the conquest.

The arguments seem to have their base in the predominance of 'Germanic' artifacts vs Romano/Celtic artifacts in the former settlements. That of course does not tell much about who collects & disburses the taxes, but it does suggest something about culture. The related question brought out in the linked thread, & hinted at here, is how much seaborne traffic there was around the North Sea rim.
 

libbrit

Banned
The peasantry spoke and behaved much as they always had done. After hundreds of years of English culture plenty of Welsh speak Welsh and some as their first language. The fine, sadly late, F1 driver Tom Pryce was not a sparkling English PR performer because his first language was Welsh. There are television channels in Welsh and Scots Gaelic so Germanic languages would have had no problem surviving the Romans.


Random if interesting point, S4C, the Welsh Language TV channel, is the only TV chanel i know of, that recently registered 0 viewers :D
 
I deeply agree the hypothesis I outlined has massive holes in it but the underlying point is that it gives AN explanation for a germanic presence in the east of england and there are many point of linkage between the eastern and southern tribes of britain and continental tribes.

With a germanic cultural peasant background, arriving settlers from across the sea replacing a latinised elite and middle class, would be seen as a cultural model and german would be the new cool.

A separate hypothesis notes extensive storm flooding occurring in the Denmark to Belgium coast around this period and it is suggested that this prompted a search for new land with the seafaring coastal people being common visitors to Britain and knowing what might be available there.

Thus these new germans arrive and take over the old germans. The events of the Vortigern tale may be correct, but they would not be the way the saxons first arrived. A more general arrival over time into a receptive local population seems more plausible to me.

It might be worthy of note that the british settlers who took over Brittany are traditionally depicted as led by fleeing elite and the middle class ie with their households, rather than desperate peasants fleeing ravaging invaders. DNA tells us that most english peasants are the same stock today as they were in the pre bronze age.

So, to address the original post, if Vortigern had never invited the Saxons to Britain it would have made little difference. They were there already and would continue to arrive.
 
It might be worthy of note that the british settlers who took over Brittany are traditionally depicted as led by fleeing elite and the middle class ie with their households, rather than desperate peasants fleeing ravaging invaders. DNA tells us that most english peasants are the same stock today as they were in the pre bronze age.

Some years ago I heard a interview with some Englishman.,perhaps from the Midlands. He and a number of others in his village had their DNA matched to that recovered from the bones of a excavated grave dated back several thousand years. At first he was quite excited to learn of the connection to folks who had lived there so long ago. Then he realized it meant none of the intervening ancestors had the ambition to wander off in search of anything new :confused:
 
Even without the Saxons being brought in as mercenaries (at first), couldn't they come anyway as overt invaders?

Population pressures are population pressures, after all, plus the Saxons participated in the Barbarian Conspiracy of 367 (I think that was the year) and Britain after the legions left was a much weaker target.
 
Even without the Saxons being brought in as mercenaries (at first), couldn't they come anyway as overt invaders?

Population pressures are population pressures, after all, plus the Saxons participated in the Barbarian Conspiracy of 367 (I think that was the year) and Britain after the legions left was a much weaker target.

True, but even a weakened Britain would be capable of putting up something resembling a fight against overt Saxon invasion (remember, the Saxons of OTL were hardly Viking-esque masters of naval warfare, they just travelled by sea); they might not win, but then again they might so. The advantage of the "mercenary approach" is that Saxons have an excuse to arrive in numbers without alerting the Britons overmuch, and then being in a prime spot when the time to strike arrives (I'm not saying that was planned, it just happened to turn out that way).
 
I deeply agree the hypothesis I outlined has massive holes in it but the underlying point is that it gives AN explanation for a germanic presence in the east of england and there are many point of linkage between the eastern and southern tribes of britain and continental tribes.

With a germanic cultural peasant background, arriving settlers from across the sea replacing a latinised elite and middle class, would be seen as a cultural model and german would be the new cool.

A separate hypothesis notes extensive storm flooding occurring in the Denmark to Belgium coast around this period and it is suggested that this prompted a search for new land with the seafaring coastal people being common visitors to Britain and knowing what might be available there.

Thus these new germans arrive and take over the old germans. The events of the Vortigern tale may be correct, but they would not be the way the saxons first arrived. A more general arrival over time into a receptive local population seems more plausible to me.

It might be worthy of note that the british settlers who took over Brittany are traditionally depicted as led by fleeing elite and the middle class ie with their households, rather than desperate peasants fleeing ravaging invaders. DNA tells us that most english peasants are the same stock today as they were in the pre bronze age.

So, to address the original post, if Vortigern had never invited the Saxons to Britain it would have made little difference. They were there already and would continue to arrive.

Deposited by the Goa'uld is also "an explanantion". :rolleyes:

What's far more likely is that the Romans had already invited over "Saxon Mercenaries" to help man the forts of the Channel (both sides becoming known as the Saxon Shore - a reference that was never used for the East Coast btw).
With the Legions departing more and more mercenaries are invited over until they can no longer be absorbed and it's a migration
 
Some years ago I heard a interview with some Englishman.,perhaps from the Midlands. He and a number of others in his village had their DNA matched to that recovered from the bones of a excavated grave dated back several thousand years. At first he was quite excited to learn of the connection to folks who had lived there so long ago. Then he realized it meant none of the intervening ancestors had the ambition to wander off in search of anything new :confused:
Yes indeed. The background baseline is that most people in Britain are about 85% genetically identical to the pre farming population. Talking about saxons or whatever is talking primarily about culture not genetics. Although there is questionable evidence of a genetic difference between the west and the east even that far back. I take the view that, from the absence of celtic names in the south and east and the names the Romans found for the tribes there, there was an extensive presence of a similar culture between the east of england and the opposite German Ocean coast. Hence, as has been said above, the 'Saxons' (speaking myself as an East Anglian) were simply the last suspects.

Vortigern was not the British leader and the Saxons were here and more arriving all along the south and east coast so him not inviting Hengist, Horsa etc. would have made no real difference. Perhaps it gave a foothold to a particular group of 'Saxons' (Jutes) who had trouble finding a foothold where Saxons and Angles were already in place. Hence the Jutish settling into Kent and Hampshire.

I can imagine the sailing instructions for Jutish sailors. 'Head into the setting sun, when you find land on both sides turn right.'

There is a hypothesis that says that the British resistance to the Saxons was a class affair whereby the latinised British aristocracy and middle classes were trying to maintain their hold on the traditional unlatinised peasants. In support of this is the settlement of Brittany by the British allegedly fleeing from the Saxons. The written tales suggest that this was the aristocracy moving out with their households but we certainly know the peasantry stayed in place and embraced the (familiar?) Saxon culture. In the west the peasantry were unfamiliar with Saxon culture and the aristocracy was more traditional. Hence the west was more difficult for the Saxons to take being ungermanic hence Cumbria, Cornwall and Wales retained their Brythonic cultures and languages. The first losing it in the medieval period, Cornwall in the 17/18th century and Wales still has it.

I don't know about S4C with a 0 viewer status but, years ago in Manchester, my (then) little children preferred to watch SuperTed in Welsh and had a curious affection for Pobol y Cwm.
 
Top