PDA

View Full Version : Mass Migrations of Anglo-Saxons



Hanna
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 08:13 PM
What do you think of mass migrations of Angles, Saxons and Jutes to England? Surely they must come from somewhere.

Aptrgangr
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 08:41 PM
What do you think of mass migrations of Angles, Saxons and Jutes to England?
They were called by the Britons to help them fighting other Britons and Picts.
The first wave arrived in the 3rd century, when Romans still were ruling Britain (Britannia), but the main wave of settlers came in the 4th century.
With them it's like with the Romans, it does not make sense to condemn Bronze/Iron age migrations. We must take history as it is - and learn out of it.


Surely they must come from somewhere.
Sure. From Anglia, Saxony and Jutland - today northern Germany and Denmark.

forkbeard
Monday, November 10th, 2008, 09:10 AM
Scottish Histories say the Angles and Saxons based themselves on Orkney as a base for piracy and raiding Roman Britain. The Saxon shore defences being built to keep them away. At the same time most (90%) of Roman troops were recruited from the Rhine frontier, so many Germanics would have noticed Britain as a pleasant land.
Recent mitochondrial analysis has only put the Anglo Saxon input to Britain at 5%. I think this is distorted figure compared to actual history. The true comparison with North German/Danish mitochondria suggests at least 30%.
No one has counted either the effects of Irish and Welsh immigration during the industrial revolution along with civilisation breeding a large underclass. This along with the Germanic addiction to dying in silly wars would have reduced the Germanic element in Britain.
Perhaps the decline in Germanic blood accounts for the deterioration in character of the British.

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 12:17 AM
Sure. From Anglia, Saxony and Jutland - today northern Germany and Denmark.

Northern Germany and Jutland is correct, but there's also another very plausible theory that the Jutes came from modern day Holland.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 01:06 AM
Northern Germany and Jutland is correct, but there's also another very plausible theory that the Jutes came from modern day Holland.

North-western Germania then ;)

Guntwachar
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 01:35 AM
The Saxons travelled through the Netherlands to England and possible some Frisians joined them so it could be that the Jutes also travelled through the Netherlands to England.

Jute
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 10:20 PM
No one has counted either the effects of Irish and Welsh immigration during the industrial revolution along with civilisation breeding a large underclass. This along with the Germanic addiction to dying in silly wars would have reduced the Germanic element in Britain.
Perhaps the decline in Germanic blood accounts for the deterioration in character of the British.
It is romantic to think that England has not changed since the germanic takeover of 1,500 years ago, but it has, as you wrote. The northern industrial areas have been "Celticised" somewhat by Irish migration. Certainly it caused the germanic share of the genepool to fall a bit.

Someone had posted here some weeks ago, that if only those with 8 full-English great-grandparents had the right to vote, Labour would be out of power permanently. The Irish-descent citizens all vote for Labour for their own ethnoconscious reasons. (It is the same in the USA, the Irish-Catholic in the northeastern USA and the Democratic Party were long inseparable.)

Anlef
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 10:28 PM
Northern Germany and Jutland is correct, but there's also another very plausible theory that the Jutes came from modern day Holland.

Really? Interesting! Do you know where I could read some more about this?

rainman
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 10:46 PM
Rather than dealing with ancient races a folkist should deal with the race they have before them centered around a folkscommunity. If you are born into a tribe and an accepted member of it then you are %100 of that tribe. It doesn't matter where your grandparents came from. Though you have to genetically conform to it.

In a similar way with nations. New folk are created from old ones or mutations and divisions in the gene pool or landscape. Old ones go.

Of course nations are not races. A folk depend on an actual folk community to regulate its own people and disclude that which does not conform to the ideal of that particular folk.

I would say it matters less where you came from (even though that is very important) and more where you are going. For example take a bunch of people from a "pure" background for seven generations who have this noble history but who don't have the idea of a folk community. They will probably deteriorate and mix over time. Now take a motley crew of mixed people with the not so greatest histories. You apply the standards of a folk group and eugenics for several generations and you then have a healthy race before you. Either you conform to that race and are a member of it or you aren't. There is no "I'm 1/12 Irish". You swear loyalty to a group.

Though usually the only way for a healthy folk group is to have an upper class. These represent the "ideal" people. Like the SS troops. Then have your commoners who may not be ideal but are relatively healthy and conforming. Then you may have your "subjects" that are like the retards, defects, people who don't conform to the community either because of too much impure blood or just mutations. The same system was in place in old europe with their nobility, commoners and outcasts (usually outcasts didn't live long in the dark ages because of harsh conditions).

Oswiu
Saturday, November 22nd, 2008, 10:54 PM
Someone had posted here some weeks ago, that if only those with 8 full-English great-grandparents had the right to vote, Labour would be out of power permanently. The Irish-descent citizens all vote for Labour for their own ethnoconscious reasons.
I don't vote Labour. :| Neither does my father (3/4 Irish) or mother (1/4 Irish). My Irish grandmother does, however, and many others do. It's not so simple at all. You might find, actually, that do-gooding and xenophilia are more prevalent in the middle classes, which are less penetrated by Irish incomers.


Scottish Histories say the Angles and Saxons based themselves on Orkney as a base for piracy and raiding Roman Britain.
I saw a whole book on this, when in Caithness. Called "The Early English in Orkney", or the like. I had a flip thru, and it's not quite as mad as it might at first seem, and there is at least one Classical author who hints at the possibility. I don't think it should be overemphasised, but there may have been a short-lived pirate base there, or something could have grown from the Pictish-Germanic alliances of the Great Barbarian Conspiracy...


Northern Germany and Jutland is correct, but there's also another very plausible theory that the Jutes came from modern day Holland.
Really? Interesting! Do you know where I could read some more about this?
As Drim said, it's highly likely that the Jutes made a stop off at an intermediate point in their migration.
Various noted parallels in agriculture and administration in Kent hint at a close connection with the Frankish Rhineland, and one deeper than mere contacts across the English Channel.
You could begin here, an old book, but a good one (Myres, The English Settlements 1937):
http://books.google.com/books?id=fMcbnMFn8lcC&pg=RA1-PA268&lpg=RA1-PA268&dq=fersomari&source=web&ots=Zh16HYZBs8&sig=nBBf_nwszooQen6ZnKxJFUboat8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Anfang
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 07:51 AM
Rather than dealing with ancient races a folkist should deal with the race they have before them centered around a folkscommunity. If you are born into a tribe and an accepted member of it then you are %100 of that tribe. It doesn't matter where your grandparents came from. Though you have to genetically conform to it.

In a similar way with nations. New folk are created from old ones or mutations and divisions in the gene pool or landscape. Old ones go.

Of course nations are not races. A folk depend on an actual folk community to regulate its own people and disclude that which does not conform to the ideal of that particular folk.

I would say it matters less where you came from (even though that is very important) and more where you are going. For example take a bunch of people from a "pure" background for seven generations who have this noble history but who don't have the idea of a folk community. They will probably deteriorate and mix over time. Now take a motley crew of mixed people with the not so greatest histories. You apply the standards of a folk group and eugenics for several generations and you then have a healthy race before you. Either you conform to that race and are a member of it or you aren't. There is no "I'm 1/12 Irish". You swear loyalty to a group. "

This is how the jewish people actually do it. In orthodox Communities the accept a convert as 100% jew if they are "Rightcheous converts" at this point they try to get the convert to marry another "Rightcheous convert"
The next generation the rabbis check up on them to see if they are ready to go into the community at large. Since they believe in reincarnation, the next generation after that is good to go. if the converts are not very good converts they end up marrying their children to runtier less desireable born jews, as the matchmakers and rabbis would poo poo say, a convert's child marrying a Jew with a great Jewish pedigree.

But we are not Jews.

Though usually the only way for a healthy folk group is to have an upper class. These represent the "ideal" people. Like the SS troops. Then have your commoners who may not be ideal but are relatively healthy and conforming. Then you may have your "subjects" that are like the retards, defects, people who don't conform to the community either because of too much impure blood or just mutations. The same system was in place in old europe with their nobility, commoners and outcasts (usually outcasts didn't live long in the dark ages because of harsh conditions).

Well, I guess that is what ya have to do if your'e not Scandinavian.:P

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Do I look like I need to Join a Germanic preservation forum to you?"
"Gnister" von der Jutland. Now in the big city- Arhus.

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, November 24th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Really? Interesting! Do you know where I could read some more about this?

Well i initially read it in the book Anglo-Saxon England by Frank Stenton. It's generally considered the definitive work on Anglo-Saxons, despite being over 60 years old.

Online i'm not sure of anything to refer you to. But the cultural connections between Kent - home of the Jutes - and the Frankish Rhineland are stronger than anywhere else in England.

VikingManx
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010, 02:37 PM
Scottish Histories say the Angles and Saxons based themselves on Orkney as a base for piracy and raiding Roman Britain. The Saxon shore defences being built to keep them away. At the same time most (90%) of Roman troops were recruited from the Rhine frontier, so many Germanics would have noticed Britain as a pleasant land.
Recent mitochondrial analysis has only put the Anglo Saxon input to Britain at 5%. I think this is distorted figure compared to actual history. The true comparison with North German/Danish mitochondria suggests at least 30%.
No one has counted either the effects of Irish and Welsh immigration during the industrial revolution along with civilisation breeding a large underclass. This along with the Germanic addiction to dying in silly wars would have reduced the Germanic element in Britain.
Perhaps the decline in Germanic blood accounts for the deterioration in character of the British.


Ive always wondered why on earth the English people nowdays look completely different from the descendents of the "founding stock" of Anglo-Saxon colonists in the United States. The difference is striking.

Curtisw
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010, 11:40 PM
I think its probably more significant than celebrity geneticists such as Bryan Sykes et. al would have us think. At the same time, there was not a wipeout. The Germanic tribesmen only really exclusively settled in the East Regions, while mixing substantially with the natives in the West regions.

VikingManx
Thursday, September 16th, 2010, 03:19 AM
I think its probably more significant than celebrity geneticists such as Bryan Sykes et. al would have us think. At the same time, there was not a wipeout. The Germanic tribesmen only really exclusively settled in the East Regions, while mixing substantially with the natives in the West regions.

When you look very similar to the people you conquer, and find a similar values-system in place, caucasian-mixing isnt really all that hard (once you can communicate...and stop the bloodletting anyway).