Anglo-Saxons first came to England in the 4th century AD when they began raiding the east coast. The most important of the Anglo Saxon tribes were the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes.
In about 450 the Anglo Saxons began to settle in England. By the 6th century the Jutes had occupied Kent and Hampshire, the Saxons had established the kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex, Middlesex and Essex, and the Angles were in control of the northern and eastern areas of England.
In his book, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the historian, Bede argued that by the 8th century most people living north of the Humber were descended from the Angles. This included the East Angles (East Anglia), Middle Angles (East Midlands) and the Mercians (Midlands).
After Oswald of Northumbria defeated Cadwalader at Hexham in 633, he claimed authority over all Anglo-Saxons. In the 8th century power moved to Mercia when King Offa established overall control over most of the country. The following century Alfred the Great of Wessex was able to claim the overlordship of Anglo-Saxon England.
The renewal of Scandinavian raids led to a Dane, Canute, becoming king of England in 1016. Edward the Confessor, the eldest son of Ethelred the Unready, restored the Anglo Saxons to power in 1042, although some were unhappy with the number of Norman advisers that he brought to England. Edward's successor, Harold Godwinson, was killed at the Battle of Hastings and was therefore the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.
The Anglo-Saxons, Marc Morris
For his latest book, Marc Morris has gone grander and earlier than anything he's done before. The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England covers the history of England from just before the fall of the Roman Empire through to the coming of the Normans 700 years later. Woven into the narrative A story in the writing of history it usually describes an approach that favours story over analysis. A story in the writing of history it usually describes an approach that favours story over analysis. A story in the writing of history it usually describes an approach that favours story over analysis. are the familiar tales of Hengist and Horsa, Gregory the Great’s ‘Angels’, viking raids and the Battle of Edington, along with the less well-known Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, and the enterprising monks of Glastonbury. Coming in at slightly over 400 pages, The Anglo-Saxons thus attempts to provide the perfect detailed introduction to a period of epic proportions.
Despite the daunting nature of the undertaking, Morris completes it with aplomb. Annales-level in scope, the book tackles many of the social and cultural upheavals of the period, from the coming and going (and back again) of Christianity to changes in warfare, language, international relations and, importantly, the emergence of England as an identifiable, single ‘land’. Yet unlike the heavy thematic tomes of yesteryear, Morris approaches these changes chronologically, weaving them into a thoroughly absorbing story of derring-do, individual and national success and failure, and era-defining events. Bringing it all together are biographies of some of the outstanding characters of the period. Kings, bishops and dynasties walk the pages, not as footnotes but as drivers of the narrative, conveying to the reader times and ideas that might otherwise appear incomprehensible to a modern mindset.
This approach has its limits, which Morris freely admits. He is aware that much history has of necessity ended up on the cutting-room floor, and that content has sometimes been sacrificed to clarity. He therefore apologizes, for example, for the absence of detailed academic debates, acknowledging that any attempt ‘to summarize them is as foolhardy as trying to freeze a waterfall.’ p. 7. Yet he also makes informed and well-argued judgements on many of those debates – the immigration or otherwise of the Germanic peoples at the end of the Roman era, the relationship between Alfred the Great of Wessex An Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the south of England, and a noble house. After Anglo-Saxon times, the term has been used to refer to the south west of England (excluding Cornwall). An Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the south of England, and a noble house. After Anglo-Saxon times, the term has been used to refer to the south west of England (excluding Cornwall). An Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the south of England, and a noble house. After Anglo-Saxon times, the term has been used to refer to the south west of England (excluding Cornwall). and Ceolwulf of Mercia, the effectiveness of Æthelred the Unready, to name but a few. The book, at least to a well-informed lay person, does not, then, lack in historiography The study of writing history, or of history that has already been written. The study of writing history, or of history that has already been written. The study of writing history, or of history that has already been written. . It is simply that it is so well integrated with the narrative that it often goes unnoticed. One does not need a sledgehammer to make a point.
Another apology is issued for the lack of women as focal points in chapters. This, obviously, is more down to a lack of evidence than to a lack of a strong women but Morris has managed to shoe-horn a range of under-represented characters in where possible. The want of documentary evidence is a problem with the era in general, when so little was written, and so little of what was written has survived. There are, of course, other sources of information, which Morris navigates well. He makes use of archaeological, architectural and scientific evidence, as well as folklore and saga literature, and many of these – finds from ships and burials, maps and aerial photography, pictures of Anglo-Saxon and Norman buildings – are illustrated within the text. The seven centuries between the Romans and the Normans were artistically rich and varied, and Morris proves this beautifully. Even so, some might suggest that there is too much weighting towards written evidence, but this is an ongoing argument between historians and archaeologists and will never be solved by any one man (or woman).
Naturally, the lack of evidence for what used to be known as the ‘Dark Ages’ has made the period a fertile ground for myth-making, and Morris makes it his job to dispel as many of these as possible. The notion of a golden age for women, of the formation of a particular constitutional path to freedom, the idea of the rights of all people being upheld and respected, even the habit of tenaciously holding out in times of adversity, have all been tracked to the Anglo-Saxon age. With the increase in interest in this period, aided by a huge number of films, television programmes and novels, many of these myths have been reinforced to the point where they’ve become fact in popular imagination. The Anglo-Saxons were Better. Morris’s answering point, well-argued and well-evidenced as always, comes across loud and clear: ‘We need to understand them, but we do not need to idolize them.’ p. 7.
The Anglo-Saxons helps to make this possible. It brings a complicated and often occult period, covering an immense timescale and any number of upheavals, to life. It describes the people who lived through it in a sympathetic yet honest way, showing ‘their courage, their piety, their resourcefulness, their artistry, and their professed love of freedom’ but also ‘their brutality, their intolerance, their misogyny, and their reliance on the labour of slaves’, and it makes no attempt to sugar-coat it. p. 6. And Morris, with his exceptional skills as a writer and his in-depth historical knowledge, makes it a pleasure to read. As such, The Anglo-Saxons is an effective and accessible contribution to our understanding of what has become a very fashionable era.
The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited England from the 5th century. They comprised people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language. The Anglo-Saxons established the Kingdom of England, and the modern English language owes almost half of its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to their language.
Historically, the Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period in Britain between about 450 and 1066, after their initial settlement and up until the Norman Conquest. The early Anglo-Saxon period includes the creation of an English nation, with many of the aspects that survive today, including regional government of shires and hundreds. During this period, Christianity was established and there was a flowering of literature and language. Charters and law were also established. The term Anglo-Saxon is popularly used for the language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England and eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century. In scholarly use, it is more commonly called Old English.
The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity. It developed from divergent groups in association with the people’s adoption of Christianity and was integral to the establishment of various kingdoms. Threatened by extended Danish invasions and military occupation of eastern England, this identity was re-established it dominated until after the Norman Conquest. The visible Anglo-Saxon culture can be seen in the material culture of buildings, dress styles, illuminated texts and grave goods. Behind the symbolic nature of these cultural emblems, there are strong elements of tribal and lordship ties. The elite declared themselves as kings who developed burhs, and identified their roles and peoples in Biblical terms.
The Roman armies withdrew from Britain early in the fifth century because they were needed back home to defend the crumbling centre of the Empire. Britain was considered a far-flung outpost of little value.
At this time, the Jutes and the Frisians from Denmark were also settling in the British Isles, but the Anglo-Saxon settlers were effectively their own masters in a new land and they did little to keep the legacy of the Romans alive. They replaced the Roman stone buildings with their own wooden ones, and spoke their own language, which gave rise to the English spoken today.
The Anglo-Saxons also brought their own religious beliefs, but the arrival of Saint Augustine in 597 converted most of the country to Christianity.
The Anglo-Saxon period lasted for 600 years, from 410 to 1066, and in that time Britain's political landscape underwent many changes.
The Anglo-Saxon period stretched over 600 years, from 410 to 1066.
The early settlers kept to small tribal groups, forming kingdoms and sub-kingdoms. By the ninth century, the country was divided into four kingdoms - Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and Wessex.
Wessex was the only one of these kingdoms to survive the Viking invasions. Eric Bloodaxe, the Viking ruler of York, was killed by the Wessex army in 954 and England was united under one king - Edred.
Most of the information we have about the Anglo-Saxons comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a year-by-year account of all the major events of the time. Among other things it describes the rise and fall of the bishops and kings and the important battles of the period. It begins with the story of Hengist and Horsa in AD 449.
Anglo-Saxon rule came to an end in 1066, soon after the death of Edward the Confessor, who had no heir. He had supposedly willed the kingdom to William of Normandy, but also seemed to favour Harold Godwinson as his successor.
Harold was crowned king immediately after Edward died, but he failed in his attempt to defend his crown, when William and an invading army crossed the Channel from France to claim it for himself. Harold was defeated by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings in October 1066, and thus a new era was ushered in.
The Anglo-Saxons: Facts & Information for Kids
The Anglo-Saxons were invaders, particularly of Germanic origins, that began to take over and control England beginning in 449 A.D. and ending during the Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D. The Anglo-Saxons primarily consisted of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, and Franks.
In the early 5 th century, the Roman Empire was falling so troops were withdrawn from the British Isles. The Romans left Britain with roads, buildings, some forms of Christianity, and political disarray. Native tribes lacked unity and were weak to attacks by other tribes or outsiders.
When Roman left Britain, northern inhabitants (Picts and Scots) of the isle began attacking those in the south. At the same time, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes began invading British towns. Unable to defeat the northern Picts and Scots, some southern towns reached out to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes for assistance.
The Germanic invaders did push back the Picts and Scots, but the Anglo-Saxons began to fight for land to establish their own kingdoms.
Where Did They Come From?
The Anglo-Saxons are primarily considered Germanic, and came from the areas of continental Europe, such as modern Germany and Denmark.
The Angles came from Denmark. They came from Angulus, a district in Schlewswig. They primarily settled in Mercia, Northumbria, and Anglia during Germanic invasions of England.
The Saxons migrated to Britain from Northern Germany. Today, the area would be considered near the North Sea coast spanning the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.
Historians are unsure as to the origin of the Jutes, because there is really no record of the Jutes in continental Europe. Their language suggests that they came from the Jutland peninsula. However, archeologists believe they originated near the Rhine river in northern Frankish areas. The Jutes settled in Kent, the Isle of Wight, and some of Hampshire when they migrated to England.
The Frisians came from regions near the Rhine at Katwijk. Primarily, they were from coastal regions of the Netherlands.
When Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist?
The Anglo-Saxons primarily existed between 410 A.D. and 1066 A.D.
What is the Difference Between the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings?
There are several differences between the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings, and the two groups of people adamantly fought each other for the control of Britain.
While the Anglo-Saxon’s homeland was primarily situated in the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Germany, The Vikings came from Scandinavia. This means the Vikings had their homelands in Norway, Sweden, and some parts of Denmark.
Britons during this period referred to the Vikings as the “Northmen” because they primarily came from northern homelands.
The Vikings were also considered pagans, while the Anglo-Saxons had further developed a form of Christianity. Vikings raided monasteries and attacked towns.
What is the Difference Between Saxons and the Normans?
While the Normans came from Northern France, specifically Normandy, to overthrow the Anglo-Saxons and any Viking rule, the Normans were originally Vikings from areas of Scandinavia.
The French king at the time, Charles II, gave land to a Viking chief (named Rollo) as a sign of peace between the French and the Vikings. The Vikings in Normandy lost their Viking customs, farmed the land in Normandy, became Christian, and assimilated into French society. Later, in 1066, the Norman-French army began the Norman Conquest, defeating the Anglo-Saxon army in Britain.
The Normans were Vikings that adopted French culture and then assisted with the Norman Conquest.
The 'America First Caucus' Is Backtracking, But Its Mistaken Ideas About 'Anglo-Saxon' History Still Have Scholars Concerned
T he idea of an “America First Caucus” seems to have hit a snag. A draft of a policy platform leaked last Friday, revealing that members of Congress, led by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, were planning to launch a group united by a “common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.” The next day, following significant backlash from social media and from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a spokesperson for Greene told CNN that she is “not launching anything.”
But while the proponents of the America First Caucus were likely more persuaded by their colleagues’ disapproval than by that of historians, scholars’ concerns were less easily assuaged by the launch being scrubbed. As many argued on social media, the idea of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” is based on a false&mdashand troubling&mdashunderstanding of history.
TIME spoke to medievalist Mary Rambaran-Olm, an expert on race in early England and Provost Research Fellow at the University of Toronto, who has written about the loaded racist connotations behind the term “Anglo-Saxon.” Here, she talks about her research on the real origins of the term and where the latest controversy over its use&mdashand misuse&mdashfits in its history.
TIME: What does “Anglo-Saxon” mean? Where does it come from? What’s the real origin of this term?
RAMBARAN-OLM: Basically it was an Anglo-Latin term that King Alfred used to describe how he was king over the Angles, which is the English, and the Saxons, two of the main tribes that had migrated to Britain. [Use of the term] has only been recorded three times in the entire corpus of Old English&mdashapart from a handful of charters where kings referred to themselves as such and that was used for propaganda to try and unite the kingdoms. The early English weren’t calling themselves Anglo-Saxons. Once we look at the manuscript evidence, we see that there isn’t really a basis&mdashespecially now&mdashfor people to be calling themselves Anglo-Saxons. The terms that people used during the period to describe themselves in the vernacular were most commonly “englisc” or “angelcynn.” There’s no record of it in English manuscripts from shortly after the Norman Conquest in 1066 until the 1600s.
What changed at the time it started to be used more frequently?
It was tied to colonization. Back in the 17th century, Empire was starting to manifest…and a nationalist tone. They started to look back at the centuries before, and they wanted an origin story. So instead of referring to themselves as English, they wanted to be “pure Anglo-Saxons”&mdashso there was this purity attached to it, and that was for colonization. And so in Britain that term started to seep into academic circles and then into the public. In the 19th and 18th centuries, there was something called medievalism where writers and politicians were really reflecting on an imagined past, and that’s when the term really took off. It did mean almost exclusively white, and so it became a dog whistle, and it carried forward into American politics. So this isn’t something that’s exclusively an American problem, but for the America First Caucus to use that, it stood out right away because it’s all mythology that they’re using, and they’re advancing a white-supremacist narrative. And it’s very dangerous. Everything’s sort of layered on a false understanding of history.
So the term Anglo-Saxon has been used to describe a certain purity, but Angles and the Saxons weren’t indigenous to England anyway, which means the idea of pointing to them as “original” misses the larger context. Is that a valid way to describe the irony here?
You’re absolutely right, there is definitely an irony there, that these Angles and Saxons weren’t originally from Britain they came as migrants. They migrated from modern-day Germany, the Netherlands and other areas in the northern regions of Europe. And we can connect to the Puritans or the English who came over to the Americas. The terms are always softened to say they migrated, “just like the Angles and the Saxons,” but when it’s “other” people, that language is never as soft, whether they’re “invading” or “immigrants are taking over.”
How has the use of the term “Anglo-Saxon” evolved, if at all?
It was always used for propaganda. It’s always been weaponized for nationalist reasons. People generally don’t know that there has always been this conflict in terms of the use of it. My colleague Erik Wade and I are discovering that even back 150 years ago, there were scholars, predominantly in Britain, who were saying, “No, you’re using this term that is historically incorrect.” So it’s almost like we just keep going through this same sort of cycle every 200 years.
Is there a particular political or social context that tends to surround the moments when people look back to so-called “Anglo-Saxon political traditions”? What are the most famous examples of people using and misusing the term?
Thomas Jefferson perpetuated the Anglo-Saxon myth. His idea of what America should be was the next England. He referred to it as the Anglo-Saxon project. Teddy Roosevelt, famous for the invasion of Cuba with his Rough Riders, had a copy of a racist manifesto called Anglo-Saxon Superiority. John Powell founded a white supremacist organization in the U.S. in the 1920s called the Anglo Saxon Clubs of America, and they petitioned to pass legislation in Virginia in 1924 [called] the Racial Integrity Act. Winston Churchill used this rhetoric during World War II, when he said, “why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority.” And we see it resurface during the Brexit.
So where do the “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” in the “America First Caucus” document that went viral over the weekend fit into this history?
It’s a blanket misunderstanding of the past and weaponizing that for far-right purposes. They’re just picking up on these words and terms and phrases that have been used and misused for so long&mdashbut I do appreciate that people were really pushing back. It was good to see the general public debate.
What does a focus on so-called Anglo-Saxon history miss?
Learning about English history&mdasheven within America, Canada, Australia, South Africa&mdashwe learn it from an English colonizer perspective. This does erase very important points about diversity in early England. England is not a self-made country. At the end of the day, it was people who were coming from abroad who have enriched England, to make it what it is.
Even if U.S. House Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s office now says there won’t be an “America First Caucus” launching with a platform explicitly calling for respecting “Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” why does it still matter to talk about it?
The thing is, that the rhetoric is already there, and it’s been there for centuries. It’s new for some people, but it’s not as new as people think. And that’s not to say that this won’t resurface again. Even if they soften the language, it still doesn’t take away from the dangers that are there, and she’s not one to shy away from those sorts of controversies. So it’s important that we correct those narratives and stay on guard.
- The Jutes settled in Kent.
- Saxons settled across the south of England.
- The Angles settled across north east England and the Midlands.
Together they are called the Anglo-Saxons.
But there are mysteries -
- Nobody knows how many Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea to settle in Britain.
Were there hundreds of them or thousands?
- Nobody knows how the Anglo-Saxon settlers found land to farm. Did they steal land from the Ancient Britons, did they buy land or did they find poor land that was not being farmed by the Ancient Britons?
- Nobody knows how the Anglo-Saxons gradually took over the whole of England.
- Nobodyknows how the Ancient British language disappeared completely in England. Every farm and village in England was given an Anglo-Saxon name. And now, one thousand years later, we all speak a modern version of the language of the Anglo-Saxons - English . They even changed the name of the country from Britannia to Angle land - England .
What is certain is that the Ancient British people did not disappear.
The Ancient Britons started to speak the Anglo-Saxon language (Old English).
They adopted Anglo-Saxon ways of life.
Anglo-Saxons and Ancient Britons married and brought up their children speaking the language of the Anglo-Saxon settlers.
This was not Ancient Britain any longer - it was England.
The Anglo-Saxon period lasted from the end of the Roman Britain
in 410 AD until the Norman Conquest in 1066, a time span of
Anglo-Saxons in the Vale of Belvoir
When the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the Vale of Belvoir, they found the area busy with agriculture: small farms surrounded by fields growing crops and grazing animals. This is good farming country. Farming families were self-sufficient: they built their own homes, grew their own food and made their own clothes and tools.
During the Anglo-Saxon period people began to live together in small villages of perhaps ten to twelve houses. Some people in the village were craftsmen: blacksmiths, carpenters and potters. But most people worked on farms.
The farming families of the village shared a plough and shared the oxen to pull it. They grew cereal crops of wheat, barley and rye, as well as peas, cabbages, parsnips, carrots and celery. They also picked wild fruit such as apples, pears and plums, blackberries and raspberries.
The farms in this area grew mainly crops, although goats and sheep, cattle and pigs were also kept. However, farmers could not grow enough food in the summer to feed all their animals through the winter. So, when winter came, most animals were killed and the meat was salted or smoked to preserve it. Everyone kept hens or ducks or geese. The Anglo-Saxons hunted wild animals if they could - deer, wild pigs, hares and birds - though this is not easy! And f ish caught in streams and ponds were an important part of their diet.
Anglo Saxon people lived in small rectangular wooden huts with thatched roofs. The whole family shared one single room - including the animals in the winter. The warmth of the animals’ bodies helped to keep the hut warm.
When the houses were abandoned, the wood and straw rotted away and left very little for modern archaeologists to discover.
The Seven Kingdoms
The many different tribes of Anglo-Saxons developed into seven kingdoms:
East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex (the most powerful)
and Essex, Kent and Sussex.
What is now Nottinghamshire was part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia which covered the West and East Midlands. Langar was in Mercia.
Angles an ancient Germanic tribe that inhabited the north-eastern coast of Germany and the central part of the Jutland peninsula at the beginning of our era. It is first mentioned in written sources by ancient Roman historians Tacitus and Ptolemy.
The most likely historical homeland of the Angles is considered to be the terrain on the small peninsula Angelne (part of the Jutland peninsula ), which is in the northeast of the modern German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein.
In the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, beginning in the 3rd century and most intensely in the middle of the 5th century (440 AD), the Angles, together with the neighboring Germanic tribes of the Saxons, Utovs and Frisians, moved to Britain, inhabited at that time mostly Christianized by Rome Celtic tribes. By exterminating the local population and fighting with the Saxons and the Utahs, the Angles created three kingdoms there: the northern Angles — Northumbria , the middle Angles — Mercia and East Anglia. In the VII — X centuries of our era, the Angles and Saxons merged into a single ethnos — the Anglo-Saxons , which served as the ethnic basis for the modern English nation.
Sharon Turner . The history of the Anglo-Saxons from ancient times to the Norman Conquest
11. An African refugee helped reform the English church
Some Anglo-Saxon monarchs converted to Christianity because the church had proclaimed the Christian God would deliver them victory in battles. When this failed to happen, however, some Anglo-Saxon kings turned their back on the religion.
The two men chosen to keep them wedded to Christianity were an elderly Greek named Theodore of Tarsus and a younger man, Hadrian ‘the African’, a Berber refugee from north Africa.
After more than a year (and many adventures) they arrived, and set to work to reform the English church. They would stay for the rest of their lives.
Arian on December 27, 2019:
The Saxons, Franks, Angelos, and Jutes are all Sassanid tribes brought here by the Roman governor Stilicho. They were of a different race and carried out ethnic cleansing in Britain. You know that, liar
doingmyhistoryproject on October 22, 2013:
just saying to a person that posted a long time ago, google chain mail. its not the type from when u send it to people on your email. its a metal suit.
iqra on June 09, 2012:
great i got all the information i needed for my homework :p
Colin Brewer on May 23, 2012:
Error:(1) The Christian Romano-Celts one the Battle of Mount Badon. Such a fundamental flaw mars the whole article (2) There is faint evidence for a Saxon presence in the late Roman period -see the Notitia Dignitate and also the word English in Celtic languages is always Saxon .. Sassenach/Sassein etc
Emma Green on March 26, 2012:
omg thanks so much got an A* thanks soooooooo much
Student on February 28, 2012:
Wow great information thanxz
Alan R Lancaster from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire) on February 25, 2012:
Top choice has to be BEOWULF. Although transcribed from the oral tradition and Christianised, the gist of the story is still a rollicking tall story. Aside from this import from 6th Century Danish tradition there was the &aposDream of the Rood&apos, a deep, soul-searching piece of inward-looking Anglian religious literature.
Diego on February 25, 2012:
which are the effects on literature on the anglo saxon&aposs period? and type of writing
Alan R Lancaster from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire) on February 20, 2012:
The Celts in Britannia Major (England and Wales) had either been alienated by Roman colonisation or had embraced it and were at a loss when their &aposmasters&apos left. A few myths arose from the confusion, mixing fact with fiction, the biggest one being of Arthur. What we know of the Arthur Myth now owes more to Frankish romantic writing than Celtic sources. Another myth involves an already Chritianised Patrick (Padruig/Padraig) in Wales. He may or may not have been high-born, but he was taken as a slave to Ireland etc., but that&aposs another story. The Celtic tribes who opposed Roman rule were no different when the Angles and Saxons migrated here from NW Europe. Things were even more complicated in the 7th Century when Penda of Mercia allied himself with Welsh princes against a fellow Anglian regime in Northumbria. That ended in grief for Penda. Within Northumbria a Celtic kingdom called Elmet with its own Celtic chieftain/ king prospered for a long time, coming down to us in today&aposs maps in names like Sherburn-in-Elmet and Barwick-in-Elmet (between Selby and Leeds in Yorkshire). Their culture was widespread in the North where the Romans were less effective as rulers due to lack of co-operation from the Brigantes, amongst others.
A Person on February 19, 2012:
It needs to have buildings on because i need this qustion to be answerd by tomorrow -- Why do saxons build their building out of stone!!
bob on February 18, 2012:
tevin whitetree on January 23, 2012:
nice some of u guys r mean if y&aposall don&apost like then y did y&aposall get on hear in the first place
maria on December 31, 2011:
i thought that was great thankz it help me in my HOMEWORK thankz a lot whoever wrote this is the best
John on November 23, 2011:
ic ncie , but your statement
"The Anglo Saxon period is the oldest known period of time that had a complex culture with stable government, art, and a fairly large amount of literature."
is incorrect. What about ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome, Persia, Egypt, China, etc? Even if you&aposre only talking about the British Isles, Roman Briton was very civilized. Ireland&aposs literary tradition predates that of the Anglo-Saxons and Irish monks introduced writing to many of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
joe dipmaggot. on September 13, 2011:
Trey on September 06, 2011:
alancaster149 on September 01, 2011:
Just so there&aposs no confusion, when I wrote of the Saxons not going beyond the River Tamar, this waterway empties on the south side of Devon but the source of the river is in the north. They didn&apost settle west of the Tamar.
Jesus is Hitler on August 31, 2011:
Horrid. COmpeltly incorrect. The past is the future, they all wore cat heads as shoes and neon tree bark as chlothes.
alancaster149 on August 30, 2011:
Strictly speaking the Saxons originated in an area we know as Lower Saxony and Frisia (Niedersachsen and Ostfriesland in Germany and Vestfriesland in the north-eastern Netherlands. They came in several waves, roughly at the same time into Essex as the Angles arrived in the east (Norfolk, Suffolk), and around the northern Home Counties the Angles appeared in Bedfordshire and Leicestershire whilst the Saxons occupied Middlesex and Hertfordshire. Wessex became the dominant Saxon enclave, reaching westward as far as the River Tamar, Wiltshire and Somerset on the north side, Hampshire and Dorset to the south. The Jutes had originally tsken Wight but were pushed out or eradicated by the Saxons under Cynric. The South Saxons took up the area of Sussex and Surrey. Kent was settlede from the first in the 5th Century by the Jutes under Hengist after Horsa was killed fighting the Britons. The Saxon chieftain self-styled &aposking&apos Cerdic may have been part-Celt, but by and large the Saxons pushed the Celts/Britons westward. The Angles on the other hand formed alliances with the Britons against other Angles, such as when Penda invaded Northumbria in the 7th Century, and defeated Oswald in Shropshire. Oswald&aposs brother Oswy chased Penda back towards Mercia and defeated him near modern-day Leeds. The treasure found recently near Tamworth had been offered by Oswy as a sop to Penda, and his Welsh allies left him before he could reach the safety of Mercia. Some of Penda&aposs men were caught up near Tamworth and buried much of the treasure but were caught up with some in their possession. The Saxons traditionally fought Arthur at Mons Badonicus, this much you know already, the legend did not emerge for no reason. The Britons in the south felt threatened by the Saxons, not the Angles, as our friend in the Netherlands suggests. They left the Rhine/Scheldt/Weser region because of repeated flooding in the lowlands there. In the Beowulf saga this was the area where the Fight at Finnsburgh took place, the Frisian pirates having raided on Sjaelland&aposs north coast and killed near where Hygelac&aposs hall stood. That would have been in the 6th Century, long before the state of Denmark was established in King Godred&aposs time.