Talk:History of Anglo-Saxon England

'Not invasion, but coexistence'?
'several modern archaeologists have now re-assessed the invasion model, and have developed a co-existence model largely based on the Laws of Ine. ... Although it was possible for the Britons to be rich freemen in Anglo-Saxon society, generally it seems that they had a lower status than that of the Anglo-Saxons.'

This isn't clearly formulated and explained at all. Invasion and coexistence do not exclude each other. An invasion can be followed by coexistence (especially an unequal one as implied by the Laws of Ine). The Laws of Ine only prove that the Britons weren't subject to complete genocide and enslavement everywhere in Anglo-Saxon England, but that's a rather low bar - not every invasion needs to be genocidal. As a matter of fact, what needs to be explained is how coexistence could have been brought about by something other than invasion. What's the theory - most of the 'promised land' was just miraculously vacant and waiting for Germanic immigrants to settle it, so the Britons didn't mind the newcomers at all, welcomed them with a Thanksgiving dinner and needed absolutely no violence to be convinced to allow huge numbers of Germanic-speaking neighbours to settle beside them and to establish explicitly Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with kings and elites from their ranks on what had used to be their territory, while making them second-class citizens, too? It's not as if they've got an absence of agriculture and foreign diseases to explain this convenient vacancy, as in the Americas. The article should explain, however briefly, how this is supposed to make sense. --178.249.169.67 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * IP editor, I have changed invasion model to traditional model to make it clear that it is the traditional view earlier in the paragraph that is being reassessed. The Historical context section gives Bede's account, based on Gildas, of the arrival of the Saxons as invited mercenaries rather than invaders and a later rebellion by the mercenaries. TSventon (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

On the term
@Dudley Miles even if this was just a US issue it would be worth noting but it's simply not - the divide between scholars debating this is now both sides of the channel. It's a significant historiographical point that is dominating scholarly discussion at the moment, and to not include it in the article would be silly. I'm happy to provide some sources for some more mainstream news outlets if that follows Wikipedia's guidelines better Faust.TSFL (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Er, "both sides of the channel"? Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * lol cheers thank you that should say pond! Faust.TSFL (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any discussion on history should have academic sources, not news outlets. I know that an American journal changed from having Anglo-Saxon in its title, but apart maybe one or two articles I have not seen discussion by leading British historians. I would be interested to see reliable sources on the British angle. I think the controversy is worth a section in Anglo-Saxons where it is more relevant, but not in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Contemporary sources often used Angli vel Saxones (Angles and Saxon) or similar as an inclusive term. Several of the contemporary annalists used a Latin version of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' eg: Angli Saxones by Paulus Diaconus ( Historia Langobardorum . IV . 23, V. 37 , VI . 15 ), Prudentius of Troyes called Æthelwulf, King of Wessex  rex Anglorum Saxonum. There are other examples. The original usage was probably to distinguish the  English Saxons from the continental Saxons.  However,  at that time the natives of England generally referred to themselves as  englisc , or angelcynn.  The problem is that the modern usage of the term Anglo-Saxon has become  loaded particularly in America and can have some racist elements to it. The lead to this article is quite specific it says that the Anglo-Saxon period existed from the '5th to the 11th centuries from the end of Roman Britain until the Norman conquest in 1066'.  We do not need a discussion on the modern misuse of the term 'Anglo-Saxon'- as that is not part of pre-Norman history. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. From the A-S disam page we have, for modern uses:
 * Anglo-Saxon model, modern macroeconomic term
 * Anglo-Saxon world, modern societies based on or influenced by English customs - redirects to Anglosphere
 * White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, an ethnicity in the U.S.
 * I don't know if there is a need for Anglo-Saxon (modern metaphor) or something, or whether such material should just be redirected to one of these. I don't see any sign that this "debate" is impacting serious A-S studies. Just social media froth. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * America's largest society changes its name, complete abandonment of the term by the two major conferences in the field, multiple journal style sheets have explicitly demanded those who submit work don't use the term, alongside a forthcoming book. Seems pretty significant to me! Faust.TSFL (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * but the point is that this article HAS a section on terminology! And the argument isn't that the term is used by racists it's that when the term appears in contemporary source (VERY sparsely btw,only 3 times in OE sources) it's always in an aspirational sense rather than a reality (and therefore its sole use today is the result of 18th/19thC historiography). So the argument runs that the average 'Anglo-Saxon' on the ground would not have indentified with (or perhaps even really known) that term. Obviously the validity of that argument is unclear and up for debate, but there are a significant number of scholars who support it (Cambridge's Professor of Medieval Archaeology among them....). If you're going to have a section on terminology it NEEDS to include the entire spectrum of theoretical debate surely Faust.TSFL (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is vague without citing specific sources. Who do you mean by Cambridge's Professor of Medieval Archaeology? Susan Oosthuizen, the emeritus professor, has written books and articles with Anglo-Saxon in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dudley Miles she has and most notably NOT her latest book, and the unsuitability of the term is a pretty consistent theme in the book Faust.TSFL (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . I remember now. I heard a talk by her on her latest book and found her argument unconvincing. She argues against the term Anglo-Saxon on the ground that there was continuity with the population in the Roman period and no Germanic invasion. That seems disproved by the latest genetic evidence, if it holds up. Her argument is only incidentally about the term Anglo-Saxon, so it should not be discussed in the terminology section. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't mind including in the terminology section something along the lines of: "In the 21st century the term "Anglo-Saxon" came under attack as part of the American culture wars because it appeared to relate to, or promote, the much later WASP term. As a result, some American scholars have stopped using it, sometimes trying to establish Old English as a general historical term, rather than a purely linguistic one as before. Others prefer a non-specific Early medieval."  You can do the refs. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you put that in the main body of the article you are open to it being vandalised, as it is a very contentious subject. Surely we can fix this by copying the Modern concepts from the Anglo-Saxons page, to the See also section of this article. Also perhaps  in this articles terminology section?Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is a controversy about modern usage, not the history of the period, so it does not belong in the History of Anglo-Saxon England article. Any discussion should be in Anglo-Saxons. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Name of article
This article deals with the history of Anglo-Saxon England - given that, I don't see any reason to name it "Anglo-Saxon England (410-1066)" as that is unnecessary use of parenthesis when a simpler and more useful title is available. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the date of 410 makes no sense. That is the traditional date that the Romans left, not when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

History section at Anglo-Saxon article
I started a discussion at Talk:Anglo-Saxons to see if any other editors felt that the history section there was too long and would be better off merged into this article. Ltwin (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

None in short desc
Now the short description shows as "none". The comment inside the short description template of the page did not correctly reflect the "none" option. I removed the comments and now the page correctly states "This page intentionally has no description." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you, I could see that the short description was tagged as "none", but not that the tag had been coded wrongly. TSventon (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Overlap with Anglo Saxons article
There is currently a discussion relevant to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Should_we_re-name_this_article_to_e.g._Anglo-Saxon_culture_and_society Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the big parallel parts of the two articles which I am NOT currently working on, I have set up a drafting page which might help others pick, choose, and meld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Anglo-Saxon_drafting --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can editors of this article please have a look at the history section of Anglo Saxons to see if there is anything there which could best be moved here? The history section of that article is currently longer in some parts than in this article and so some of the material there will be deleted. The "draft" page I mentioned above actually shows the two relevant sections in parallel, which may help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have started working on an update in User:Dudley Miles/sandbox2, but it is at an early stage. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK but concerning this specific overlap issue I think the first priority is to shorten some of the history sections on Anglo-Saxons. What is relevant about that here is that maybe some of the material there should be moved here. (Although at first sight, this article is better in most parts.) Not sure if that is the aim of your draft?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that Anglo-Saxon History was in reasonable state, although the references needed to be tidied up. Dudley I checked your sandbox, looks pretty good to me. Andrew you are doing a great job! Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and to be clear to Dudley, I have no problem if the aim is to improve this article first, or write a new short section for the other one. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My aim is to get the history article to a state which is suitable for FAC. Apart from that I work mainly on biographical articles, not the ones being discussed here. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've gone back to "Anglo-Saxon England or Early Medieval England...". I'm not sure I'd like that (either of them) as the title. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Johnbod about the title. No problem if you focus on the quality of the history article (this one) Dudley. The history section of the Anglo-Saxons article will be easy to shorten if there is a better quality long version to work from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the title, just the start of the article, and is unchanged from the existing wording. I have not yet got to a detailed revision of the text, just deleted unreliable sources and formatted the citations. I have got sources for reading up on the early history (I am more familiar with the ninth to eleventh centuries) but I have got diverted to a couple of minor biographical articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We probably should de-bold those opening words. See MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Concerning sources for the history sections if you are also going to work on the earliest parts then I've been working on the Settlement article and Saxons which might help. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)