Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 14th, 2009, 02:09 PM   #1

Chookie's Avatar
Creature of the Night
 
Joined: Nov 2007
From: Alba
Posts: 7,628
Blog Entries: 15
Angles and Saxons


The Angles are always seen as a distinct people, whether they are referred to as Cimbri (Strabo), Tuetones (Pliny) or Anglii (Tacitus).



While not wishing to cause too many upsets, I am going to suggest that while it is entirely possible they are (or were) a homogenous people, it is equally possible that they were a collection of tribes who all spoke related dialects of a Pre-Indo-European language.


The Saxons, however, don't presently appear to share this distinction:-


All mentions of the Saxons during the 4th and early 5th centuries refer to pirates and warlords in Gaul and Britain, rather than to a specific tribe or the inhabitants of a specific area. This failure to identify them as a separate people (or even tribe) causes me to wonder if the term “Saxon” was applied to a group who used a specific weapon – the seax.


This would seem to indicate that the Saxons were actually Angles......


I await the howls of anguish, utter disbelief and accusations of being delusional. I also expect the imminent issue of a fatwah.
Chookie is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 14th, 2009, 02:21 PM   #2

Toltec's Avatar
Fiddling as Rome Burns
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Hyperborea
Posts: 7,073
Re: Angles and Saxons


Interesting idea.

The seax Saxon theory argues the Seaxons were unique to Britain and originating from there, maybe some Romano-Brits simply began to be called Seaxon because of the knife they started to wear, akin to the sudden renaming of Caledonians to Picts by foriegn writers. Or were foriegners they but have no connection with the German Sachsens, later a linguistic muddle confused Seaxon and Sachsen together the same way as Scot, Scotti, Scitti, Scythi, which is why half the world today still believes the Scots come from Scythia.

Reading Gododdin I've never believed there's any indication that the Gododdin fought anything but another British tribe.

Last edited by Toltec; October 14th, 2009 at 02:57 PM.
Toltec is online now  
Old October 14th, 2009, 02:32 PM   #3

Sargon of Akkad's Avatar
Backworldsman
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Glorious England
Posts: 6,357
Re: Angles and Saxons


Well, according to the almighty Wikipedia, the Saxons were not a single tribe, but a confederation of tribes into a single political unit. It would seem that the Angles were a distinct tribe of their own outside of this confederacy, but who probably worked in close concert with the Saxon alliance. The Seax was probably the cause of their group name, as you suggested.

Edit: Also, howl! Scream! Fatwa!
Sargon of Akkad is offline  
Old October 14th, 2009, 05:06 PM   #4

Helfaeng's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Michigan
Posts: 266
Re: Angles and Saxons


I agree that their name comes from the usage of the seax, but also i believe they were in fact a germanic tribe or a mixture of tribes.
Helfaeng is offline  
Old October 14th, 2009, 07:43 PM   #5

Richard Stanbery's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Tennessee
Posts: 8,298
Re: Angles and Saxons


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helfaeng View Post
I agree that their name comes from the usage of the seax, but also i believe they were in fact a germanic tribe or a mixture of tribes.
According to this link, the Saxons came from what was known as "Old Saxony", in Northern Germany.

http://www.battle1066.com/saxons.shtml

I would say that the link is correct in that a rather large portion of them went with the invading sections of the tribe when they went to England. It not just warriors, but the women and children as well.
Richard Stanbery is offline  
Old October 15th, 2009, 05:46 AM   #6

galteeman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Sodom and Begorrah
Posts: 2,192
Re: Angles and Saxons


Richard I just read some of that site for the Saxons and it gives the traditional story of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Did you know that this version of events is now starting to unravel?
For example, on the very first page of that site it mentions the Saxon Shore forts being constructed to fend off the raids of the Saxons. Did you know that archaeology has now shown that these may not have been for this purpose at all and look more like trading/storage depots?
galteeman is offline  
Old October 15th, 2009, 09:33 AM   #7

Richard Stanbery's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Tennessee
Posts: 8,298
Re: Angles and Saxons


No, I hadnt heard that, but it does make sense. Is it the shore forts only?

Or, maybe this is a referrence to the forts built as a defense against the Danes/Northmen in the time of Aethelred? But these would have been inland along the border of the former "Danelaw" wouldnt it?

What started out as a series of actual forts might have just evolved into storage sites, and trading places. Here, taxes may have been paid and stored, guarded by the huscarls or some trustworthy minor noble. I suppose some extra weapons and plunder/loot might have been stored under guard as well. I wonder if these were used as "hundred" forts?

These stone shore forts would have been a little tough for unsophisticated forces of a small raiding force to crack. The Saxons might have used the similar strategies of those used in Ireland with the round towers, such as the one on Devinsih Island. Whatever goods were stored in there would have been safe enough from a small raid, who wouldnt want to stop and lay siege to one of these. Only a large raid with siege machines would want to tackle one?

Or, if one were to have to fort up for a while and let a Danish force blow past on thier way somewhere else, the defenders would need supplies already in storage there. These Saxon shore forts may have been multi-use places. Its hard to tell.

Are you talking specifically about shore forts, or inland forts as well? These being stone forts from the time of Aethelred?

I have often allowed myself a flight of fancy in wondering how my own family name came to be. Stanbery was in the old world Stanboro. It got changed when we came to America for whatever reason I dont know.


Stanboro is a form of the Saxon word "Stan" for stone, and "Burh" or "Burg" for fort or fortress. Its an unusual name, isnt it. The Saxons didnt commonly use surnames, that was a Norman introduction, I assume. I never really did figure how we came to be called this?

I found a couple of referrences to the places associated with the name in the Doomsday book. There was a Stanborough hundred which had been an earlier name in the Doomsday book. I have no idea what it all means. I think that it had been an iron age fort of some kind.

http://www.paribus.co.uk/cia/viewPla...1a003b0f720066

I didnt know what a hundred was, as in Stanborough hundred, so I looked it up on wiki. This is what I got...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred...ry_subdivision)

Looks like a hundred was an old Saxon term of a territory which could produce 100 families, or 100 men at arms (unclear which), and was goverened by a constable. Looks like a hundred was similar to what we in America would consider a small county.So, Im wondering if every hundred had one of these stone forts as a kind of base from which to operate from? These small forts might have been like a county seat, a place of governance at the small level? Maybe this is what the shore forts you mentioned were about? They might have served the same purpose and the other hundred forts inland? Just that where there was a need great enough, they were built of stone?

We Americans are often at a loss in understanding this ancient European stuff that Europeans would commonly just know. But it is fascinating to learn about this stuff and try to sort it all out. Of course, we add 2 and 2 and sometimes come up with 22 when dealing with trying to figure out what small forts were for, what is a hundred, where did my family name come from, etc.I guess what I am trying to say in my own muddled up (as usual) way is that while researching my family name and trying to figure out what it meant, I came up on these little terms like the stone forts and the hundred system.. But I find it very interesting and it has a grab on me.


But as yet, I have no idea how we came to be called such an unusual name. It was hard to learn how to spell in the 1st grade. All the other kids had easy names, while I had this crazy name that didnt even sound like a word.??? I wished then that I could have just been named "Brown" or something less odd. But hey, what's in a name?

You are right about the theory of the shore forts. Some old theories have a way of getting modified in the light of archeology. It will be interesting to see what the future tells us about the Saxon forts.

Last edited by Richard Stanbery; October 15th, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
Richard Stanbery is offline  
Old October 15th, 2009, 12:52 PM   #8

Chookie's Avatar
Creature of the Night
 
Joined: Nov 2007
From: Alba
Posts: 7,628
Blog Entries: 15
Re: Angles and Saxons


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Stanbery View Post
No, I hadnt heard that, but it does make sense. Is it the shore forts only?
The word "shore" is a clue...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Stanbery View Post
Or, maybe this is a referrence to the forts built as a defense against the Danes/Northmen in the time of Aethelred? But these would have been inland along the border of the former "Danelaw" wouldnt it?
Richard, there are 600+ years between the establishment of the Saxon Shore “forts” and the time of Aethelred. So there is absolutely no connection between the two.The Romans did not have the gift of second sight, thus there was no way they could forecast the needs of a bunch of barbarians 600 years in the future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Stanbery View Post
Are you talking specifically about shore forts, or inland forts as well? These being stone forts from the time of Aethelred?
Yes, the "forts of the Saxon Shore - some of which were in Gaul.
Chookie is offline  
Old October 15th, 2009, 01:05 PM   #9

Richard Stanbery's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Tennessee
Posts: 8,298
Re: Angles and Saxons


Greetings Chookie.
I thought that galteeman might have been talking about later uses and evolutions of these forts in latter times, after the Saxons had taken over.
I was thinking that the Saxons made use of these forts of Roman origins, and may have incorporated them into thier own uses in the time of Aethelred, at least in some places.
Richard Stanbery is offline  
Old October 15th, 2009, 01:15 PM   #10

Chookie's Avatar
Creature of the Night
 
Joined: Nov 2007
From: Alba
Posts: 7,628
Blog Entries: 15
Re: Angles and Saxons


Not really, the Saxons / Angles / Anglo-Saxons or Anglo-whatevers were more into building in wood. Any forts they built would have been motte-and-bailey, but in point of fact they weren't all that concerned about forting up. They preferred to fight in the open.
Chookie is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
angles, saxons


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Anglo Saxons PADDYBOY European History 10 March 1st, 2011 07:36 AM
Saxons Versus Mongols Helfaeng Speculative History 81 July 23rd, 2010 05:59 PM
the saxons old_abe Medieval and Byzantine History 3 September 1st, 2006 09:59 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.