Talk:Saxons/Archive 1

Englishmen and North Germans
Does this mean Englishmen and North Germans are ethnically one & the same ???


 * No. Ethnicities often decide themselves because of historical, cultural, political, geographical and linguistic issues.  It only means that Saxons were one of the component progenitors (along with Angles, Jutes, Frisians, etc.) of Anglo-Saxons. - Gilgamesh 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say that they are connected, as they are part of the overal Germanic Ethnic Group (Yes the English are Germanic, due to liguistics, culture and history)...however to say the English are Northern Germans is slightly incorrect (As the people that became Anglo-Saxons were from the Netherlands, Northern Germany and Denmark...which all have different albeit connected identities). Some would disagree with this however I am afraid they are mistaken and/or guided by nationalistic biases!

What's in a name
The article currently has "The word 'Saxon' is believed to be derived from the word seax, meaning a variety of single-edged knives" but I don't believe this reflects the consensus of current scholarship. The name Saxon derives from a more ancient name. The Saxon defeat by the Great Yuezhi was recorded by both the Chinese and the Greeks, and in both accounts the Saxons were known by similar names. To the Greeks the Saxons were "Sakasena" plural sometimes "Sakaraucae" and to the Chinese they were "Saka" or Sakas". The relationship of the Greek Sakasena to the Saxon's is known because the same account also denotes the "Tokhari" who are the Tocharians (notice the Arian derivative).  Saxon is thus derived from the Greek form Sakasena.

I'd like to edit the above about the origin of the name Saxon, if people agree. LinuxDude (talk)

Northern Albingia
Northern Albingia means "north of the Elbe river" and isn't near Holstein but Holstein itself, well perhaps not exactly in the same borders, granted, but near gives another impression. I'll rewrite that.80.235.69.5 (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Laender
I'm a native German speaker and wonder if "Today's Laender Nordrhein-Westfalen" is correct English? At least it's not correct German because Laender (or Länder) ist the plural of Land and Nordrhein-Westfalen is just one federal state of Germany. --217.229.88.91 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Britain
This needs to be cleaned up a bit. Most historians AFAIK believe the Roman withdrawal happened some time before the Saxon conquest, something like 50-100 years. In the interim Britain was ruled by Romanized Britons speaking British (i.e. Welsh).

As well, the whole "Hengest and Horsa" bit has to be taken with a grain of salt. Many believe that one or both of these were mythological figures. --Saforrest 18:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, British is more 'Old Welsh'. I have amended the section to remove the idea that the Britons fled in the face of the Teutons and replaced it with the accepted historical account, that the Britons were absorbed into England. Enzedbrit 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Saxons were described by Charlemagne (himself a renowned Warrior King,) as 'ferocious' and I have no doubt that an 'invasion' by the Saxons was just that. Their name is derived from the Seaxe fighting knife which is a particularly decisive weapon and very hard to parry. It is for slashing and cutting. I have one like I have Celtic and other hand weapons. They would probably have fought with great tenacity and in the Germanic way. That is, firstly the ethos was better to die than run, and that if victorious they would have burnt even the valuable captured items such as horse tack. They would have been used to fighting larger forces than the Brythons (Britons,) including the Franks and Romans. I just don't think that the cultured Romano-Britons were kitted out psychologically to face them - why they asked for them to come and help against the Picts in the first place ib 450 AD.

But I do agree that the Hengest story in possibly a bit 'grainy,' I believe he existed but that Horsa was just that - his horse. Yet his name is recalled by Gildas and others.

Miner 27 Jan 07 18.49

Have to agree with Miner - almost as soon as the legions left Britain the Britons asked for help in repelling the various Germanic tribes, and were refused. The nature of Roman axillary recruitment meant that any legionries recruited in Britain would be stationed elsewhere in the empire, so the only trained fighters in Briton would have been withdrawn when the legions left. The Britons didn't know how to fight. It is difficult to believe that any tribe known by the name of it's fighting knife went for peaceful settlement. In addition, a genetic profile of the northern regions of England a few years ago indicates that up to 90% of the Romano-British male population "disappeared" at the time of the Anglo-Saxon occupation, while a genetic comparrions with Frisia indicates a displacement of the Romano-British population at somewhere between 50% and 100%. I think it is also worth considering that many arguements against a violent Anglo-Saxon invasion seek to dispute this view on the basis of historiography.

The old version of violent barbarians taking land by force, were it is argued, a both product of and justification for the expansion of the then British (Anglo-Saxon) Empire. It is nothing more than history written to fit the then contemporary attitudes of violent conquest and seizure of land. This more pacific view, however, first appears in the late 1960s and onward - a period when violent invasion was out of fashion. I would argue that the pacific displace of Romano-British culture is actually biased histoiography, penned to fit-in with the desires of a war weary world. The Anglo-saxons themselves did not, most likely, share this view. Kro666 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Saxon shore
I am slightly amused that someone has interpreted the Southern sea forts which are along the Saxon shore, as being to "keep out the Saxons". Where's your proof? For all we know they were built by the Saxon(ie germanic/frisian) occupants of Southern England to protect those ports from sea attacks by Scythians(vikings). Why on earth would the Romans have called it the Saxon Shore unless it had Saxon(ie Germanic non-celtic) occupants? Also you have said that Saxons already occupied parts of the South Coast "because they had been invited in by the Romans". Isn't it more likely they were there already? By the way, the Romans in general referred to all non-Celts in Britain as being Saxons. In the Gallic Chronicle of 452 Tyro states that Britons in 443 were reduced "in dicionen Saxonum" (under the jurisdiction of the English). Its highly doubtfull they did that in such a short space of time after the Roman withdrawal. There must have been a sizable Saxon presence there already...with forts. The old History of Genocidal invasions by Saxons has been debunked, those same historians claimed(despite a gaping lack of Celtic evidence found) that England was Celtic. They probably got that wrong too. England is likely to have been Germanic(ie Frisian or Anglian or Saxon) since before the many limited invasions by invaders post Roman period. Many modern Historians/scientists like Steven Oppenheimer, Francis Pryor etc concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.59.150 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture?
Shouldn't there be some description of saxon culture? This really doesn't give a good picture of who the saxons were, just what they did. (82.12.202.32 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

I agree with the culture question above. You wouldn't 'just' invade and colonize. There was something built into the culture (like the vikings?) that encouraged invasion and colonization. Also, there must have been a decent economy to help support the invasions. An economy that was better that the invaded area?


 * Maybe it was a 'lack of economy' that caused all those people to go and settle England. Same reason why all those people moved to the new world (and started killing the natives there) a thousand years later. But yes, they had 'something' built into their culture that made them more likelye to raid and migrate more then other people. Firstly: all Germanic peoples placed a strong emphasise on war, raiding and plunder (endemic warfare). Second, they usually praciced slash and burn agriculture, wich requires you to move on after a few years. Krastain 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Saxons are Scythians?
I think saxons are scythians considering their traditions and similarity .Interestingly english oe german is quite close to Marathi,an Indo-European language .Marathas are also considered as probable descendents of scythians.They also professed more or less same warlike culture .kasar59.184.152.183 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In old Britain Scythian and Saxon were both general terms(much like we use the word Asian today) to refer to either Scandinavian Sea farers, or to Germanic people. Scythians were essentially old age vikings, and Saxons were essentially Frisians/Saxon/Germans. The Welsh/Scots in particular called all Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Frisians/non-Celtic-Britons Sassenachs..Saxons. The Anglo Saxon chroncile specifically says that Picts were Scythians, which pins them down as very early Norse colonists. This is confirmed by DNA and recent deciphering of Pictish Oghams as being clearly Norse. --92.0.59.150 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to leave out the rash equation of any ancient or medieval people to the Scythians. I don't know where you got your information ("I think..."), but don't rely on it too much. The Marathi are about as Scythian as, let's say, the Italians. Or the Saxons, for that matter. Linguistic parallels between Indo-European languages usually stem from stemming from the same common ancestor, which will have been Proto-Indoeuropean in that case, not Scythian.


 * For the person who wrote the comment about medieval "Scythians" (i.e. raiders from the Scandinavian east) and the Picts: you might find the sections on genetics in "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer an enjoyable read. (His linguistic suggestions are a different matter.) :-) Trigaranus (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above opinion. Runic inscriptions are common between archaelogic artifacts found in Scythians and Germanic regions, which is further evidence to the above opinion. Iranian evidence such as Shahnameh by Ferdowsi use the name "Sagzi" or "Saxi" for the people of Saka (Scythians), which is likely how the name "Saxon" evolved from "Saka". This is in contrast to the explanation the Wikipedia article is providing for the name "Saxon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.70.153 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I just wanted to point out that modern, "objective" history as facts didn't exist back in these ancient texts, and they often used names of one group for all similar groups (as in middle ages when many Europeans called any asiatic nomads Huns even if they were some other group). So, I support links and citations for complete lines of thought to be educational in what will be new to people (that Saxon as a name might be older than Saxony) rather than argue over which is right or wrong, explain the debate. Paddling bear (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Saxons
This is misleading. The Romanians distinguish between three types of Germans in Romania: Saxons (Saşi), Austrians and Swabians. I have edited accordingly.GordyB 12:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about Saxons in medieval Southeastern Europe
The article writes about Saxons in Southeastern Europe, a group known in German as Siebenbürger Sachsen (Transylvanian Saxons). These people were just called Saxons. They were not Saxons in the sense of belonging to the Saxon tribe. The article, however, is about the tribe.

Everything written about the Romanian Saxons is given in greater and more correct detail in the article about Transylvanian Saxons. I will delete the paragraph for that reason. If you wish, you can see what can be added to that article.

Please be aware that the sources listed make many mistakes. For instance, they claim that the Saxons were ore miners from the Upper Harz. The Upper Harz was settled by the Thuringians - a different tribe - in the late Middle Ages for exactly the reason that there were no Saxon ore miners. -- Zz 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient Greek geographer Jean Julien"
I have never heard of this Ancient Greek with a modern French name... Are you sure? 196.14.137.80 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Errol

Modern remnants of the Saxon name
''as in the famous My ny vynnav kows Sowsnek! (I will not speak English!).''

Why is this famous? Famous to whom? POV surely --81.157.123.4 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look on this page. It's a Cornish bon mot reflecting their attitude towards English. Trigaranus (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be famous if you're a Cornish nationalist, or even just Cornish, but I've never heard of it and I suspect the vast majority of the English speaking world hasn't either. --Ef80 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Holstein in Hesse"
"Their earliest known area of settlement is Northern Albingia, roughly that of today’s Holstein in Hesse ..." No, it's in Schleswig-Holstein (~ former Northern Albingia + Anglia), in the north, while Hessen is in the middle. Truchses 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed in Hesse. I am not sure about the claim that the east of the Netherlands was part of their original land (especially if one excludes Lower Saxony: why would their territory end at a border which became a national border almost a millennium later?).

Map
It might just be me, but I found the map to be very unclear. It doesn't give the reader a clear idea of where the Saxon homeland was. I propose that a better alternative be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.106.28 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the map sucks. This one shows it better, allthough the scale still is too large for my taste http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/NE_500ad.jpg Krastain (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The map is BS, that's rather Germany there than Saxony. But the above map isn't accurate either, the Angles were situated slightly further north. The northern border of the Saxon territory is usually regarded to be the Eider river in the middle of Schleswig-Holstein, i.e. the border between Schleswig and Holstein, and not the Elbe river, which is the southern border of Holstein. The Holsten were a Saxon tribe. As were the Stormarn and one other group I've forgotten who have inhabited Holstein for the last 2000 years. (Don't know what Holsten means, Stormarn means probably either "Strong Men" or "Stubborn Men" - the latter being closer to the truth anyway.)80.235.69.5 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The map shows the Holy Roman Empire, not Saxons' homeland. You can be sure Bohemia and Moravia, although a part of the HRE, was fully Slavic in in the 10th century. Germans, invited by Czech kings, came in the 14th century. --Zik2 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something missing
"During Charlemagne's campaign in Hispania (778), the Saxons advanced to Deutz on the Rhine and plundered along the river. With defeat came the enforced baptism and conversion of the Saxon leaders and their people. Even their sacred tree, Irminsul, was destroyed."

How do we go from advancing and plundering to defeat? Is there a line missing here, explaining how the tables turned? Gabhala 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

English Saxons?
"Saxon participation in the Germanic settlement of Britain was very strong and at times dominant, so that particularly in today’s southern England, the basic population is thought to descend essentially from the ancient Saxon people."

This is flat out wrong. A simple look at the genetic evidence shows that most of the population descends from pre-Indo-Europeans from northen Spain, who migrated about 10,000 years ago link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woscafrench (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is a weasel statement - where's the evidence? Both genetic studies done in the last 5 years indicate the opposite - that many in South England descend from the Romano-Britons. See English people. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to something hopefully more neutral. (Nebulousity (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Can someone edit the mention of Bede being from East Anglia? He was Northumbrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.107.43 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saxons in the Balkans
This paragraph seems to be about 13th and 14th century people from Saxony who moved to the Balkans. Since the first sentence of the article is 'The Saxons or Saxon people were a confederation of Old Germanic tribes.' I'll remove the balkan-paragraph, since the people involved weren't Old Germanic Saxons but medieval Germans. Besides, as the article on Transylvanian Saxons clarifies, these 'Saxons' spoke a Franconian dialect and as such weren't Saxons in any way. Krastain (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Saxons before the fall of the empire
Should we not have something more about the description of the Saxons and their raiding activities before the fall of the empire? I'm thinking particularly about the following quote from Sidonius (letters VIII;6). I appreciate that the meaning of "Saxon Shore" is discussed fully at that article, but I think we ought to have something about the perception of the Saxons in addition to what we have in the fourth paragraph:

13. exceptis iocis fac sciam tandem, quid te, quid domum circa. sed ecce dum iam epistulam, quae diu garrit, claudere optarem, subitus a Santonis nuntius; cum quo dum tui obtentu aliquid horarum sermocinanter extrahimus, constanter asseveravit nuper vos classicum in classe cecinisse atque inter officia nunc nautae, modo militis litoribus Oceani curvis inerrare contra Saxonum pandos myoparones, quorum quot remiges videris, totidem te cernere putes archipiratas: ita simul omnes imperant parent, docent discunt latrocinari. unde nunc etiam ut quam plurimum caveas, causa successit maxuma monendi. 14. hostis est omni hoste truculentior. inprovisus aggreditur praevisus elabitur; spernit obiectos sternit incautos; si sequatur, intercipit, si fugiat, evadit. ad hoc exercent illos naufragia, non terrent. Djnjwd (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Belgium...
...those in north eastern Belgium are considered to be ethnic Flemish;... Sure, that there are Saxons in north east Belgium? I think, the Flemish region is completely part of the Low Franconian language group... --TimHalldor (talk) December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The phrase: "those in north eastern Belgium are considered to be ethnic Flemish; those in northern France are considered to be ethnic French" is wrong. These are Lower Franconians. Linguaisticly related to the Saxons as Saxons and Lower Franconians are the only remnants of the Lower-German speaking group, bur still they are not Saxons. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorbs
The Sorbs were gradually Germanised ? The sorbs were actually ousted by germanic settlers (mainly franks and flams)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.125.159 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No they weren't. Look at all the Slavic surnames in Eastern Germany today.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article confuses Saxons with Scythians

 * References in antiquity to 'Sacae' are generally held to refer to the Scythians, the nomadic steppe tribe of Iranian/Asiatic origin. Clear references to the Saxons are not until much later, during the Migration Period (late Roman Empire). The Saxons were a West Germanic tribe from Northern Germany, and no claim that they were somehow descended from the Scythians can be taken seriously, outside of the annals of Wikipedia, that is.
 * Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Saxon new year
Why does the section on religion have Dec. 25th as a link, when that page doesn't mention the Saxon new year at all? Is there a page for new Years that perhaps could list Dec. 25th, March 1st, Chinese etc.? Perhaps I should have put this comment on the Dec. 25th page, but wasn't sure the topic of new years fit. Paddling bear (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)