What did the Angles, Saxons and Jutes do to the native English?

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,580
Dispargum
Moderator hat on.

It's fairly well established amongst experts that the Celts arrived in Britain during the Iron Age, and that they most certainly weren't natives of Britain: Stonehenge wasn't built by the Celts. People had been living in Britain for millennia before the Celts arrived. That's why I don't get why people call them "native Britons", because they weren't. They were invaders just like the Anglo-Saxons.
You have been misinformed. If it is fairly well established, can you furnish a list of where scholars assert this?
No, I haven't. You have.
Warwolf, this is a childishly ineffective response to a challenge to cite sources.

Context. While it may be technically true that Celts migrated to Britain in 600 BC, the OP asked 'What did the Anglo-Saxons do with the natives?' Please do not distract the thread with facts that are 1,000 years out of context. When the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the fifth and sixth centuries, they were the immigrants while the Celts (and any other groups that can be defined as Romano-British) were the pre-existing population.
Your quote of me:
Context. While it may be technically true that Celts migrated to Britain in 600 BC, the OP asked 'What did the Anglo-Saxons do with the natives?'
I know that. That's why I rightly pointed out that the Celts were NOT the native peoples of Britain but were themselves invaders.
This also reveals your poor debating skills. It's called cherry picking - choosing only the part of my quote that you find convenient while ignoring the part you find inconvenient. At this point you obviously still don't understand context. Maybe you get it now after several exchanges with Autun about Stonehenge and Celts. I know you never wanted to talk about either one, but you brought it up, despite it having nothing to do with the thread's topic, and now you find yourself defending a position you never intended to take. This is why you should keep your comments consistent with the context of the conversation and not make obscure and arcane points. It's not about being right. It's about effective and productive communication. I guess it's poetic justice that Autun has taken your Stonehenge and Celts comments out of context.

Anything taken out of context can be wrong. Today, Cornwall is part of England, but in the context of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with England. This is why Cornwall was first included in a list of the non-England parts of Britain. Pointing out that today Cornwall is part of England doesn't advance the conversation. If you're going to communicate effectively with the rest of us, you need to interpret posts within their context.

Consider yourself warned.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,219
I've seen it suggested many times. It seems to be a fairly common thought that "the native Celts built Stonehenge" even though they didn't and they weren't natives.
Where, and who buy? By that, I mean serious researchers in celtic studies who are well published and not the usual internet new ager and tree hugger. What books suggest what you say?
 
May 2019
202
Salt Lake City, Utah
The A/S affected the older tribes of Britons in various ways. Some were killed, most were enslaved, and others ran away to safer locations.
 
May 2016
321
Greater Manchester
Where, and who buy? By that, I mean serious researchers in celtic studies who are well published and not the usual internet new ager and tree hugger. What books suggest what you say?
There are even videos on YouTube which explain that Stonehenge wasn't built by the Celts.

Anyway, that's besides the point. What's important here is that the Celts were NOT the native people of Britain.
 
May 2016
321
Greater Manchester
Moderator hat on.







Warwolf, this is a childishly ineffective response to a challenge to cite sources.



Your quote of me:



This also reveals your poor debating skills. It's called cherry picking - choosing only the part of my quote that you find convenient while ignoring the part you find inconvenient. At this point you obviously still don't understand context. Maybe you get it now after several exchanges with Autun about Stonehenge and Celts. I know you never wanted to talk about either one, but you brought it up, despite it having nothing to do with the thread's topic, and now you find yourself defending a position you never intended to take. This is why you should keep your comments consistent with the context of the conversation and not make obscure and arcane points. It's not about being right. It's about effective and productive communication. I guess it's poetic justice that Autun has taken your Stonehenge and Celts comments out of context.

Anything taken out of context can be wrong. Today, Cornwall is part of England, but in the context of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, Cornwall has more in common with Wales than it does with England. This is why Cornwall was first included in a list of the non-England parts of Britain. Pointing out that today Cornwall is part of England doesn't advance the conversation. If you're going to communicate effectively with the rest of us, you need to interpret posts within their context.

Consider yourself warned.
I'm actually of the opinion that Cornwall was included in the non-England parts of Britain because he thinks that Cornwall is not a part of England.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,580
Dispargum
I'm actually of the opinion that Cornwall was included in the non-England parts of Britain because he thinks that Cornwall is not a part of England.
The way I read posts #1, #5, and #219, it's clear to me Cornwall is being discussed in its historical, fifth and sixth century, context. You're the only one who insists on injecting a modern truism into a historical conversation. It's not about being right. It's about being on the same page as everyone else in the conversation. You are the only one who cares about Cornwall's 21st century status.


Anyway, that's besides the point. What's important here is that the Celts were NOT the native people of Britain.
No, that is not important. That is an arcane fact that you have injected into this thread. No one else cares about the Celts. It's a thread about Anglo-Saxons and Romano-British, sometimes called Brittons or Welsh.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,219
The A/S affected the older tribes of Britons in various ways. Some were killed, most were enslaved, and others ran away to safer locations.
We have to be careful with terms like 'enslaved'. There are examples of higher status britons, so they are not slaves as in people working in chains, but they have a lower status. Most of this discussion is about the numbers though. How many died, either through fighting, famine or plague, how many migrated to the west or to Brittany and how many stayed in anglo saxon communities and continued to till the soil, this time for an anglo saxon landowner rather than his previous british land owner, who probably did move away along with his wife and family and other wealthier relatives. The fate of people who could make things which the anglo saxons liked, enamelled objects, glassware etc. is interesting. Everyone likes to have people around who are useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chlodio

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,580
Dispargum
The A/S affected the older tribes of Britons in various ways. Some were killed, most were enslaved, and others ran away to safer locations.
If we include serfs as slaves then yes, most Medieval Brittons were serfs, but that doesn't tell us anything we didn't know before. Another creative definition of slaves might include those reduced to paying tribute. If we include serfs and tributaries, then I can agree that most were enslaved, but as Authun says, more precise language is helpful.

Is it helpful to differentiate between intentional genocide and unintentional genocide? And I'm leary of using that term genocide since I don't think there's any scholarly consensus on what the English did to the Brittons. But intentional genocide is when the English came in with their swords and axes and hacked to death as many Brittons as they could. Unintentional genocide is when the English drove the Brittons off of the best farm land and onto marginal land so that the Brittons could no longer grow enough food and their population reduced through starvation. Some Brittons were deliberately killed. Others died through neglect or other misfortune. Probably far more of the latter. Saying that some of the Brittons were killed is not the same as saying that some of the Brittons died. Or does it matter how they died?
 
  • Like
Reactions: authun

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,219
There are even videos on YouTube which explain that Stonehenge wasn't built by the Celts.
I should hope so. I don't understand why you claimed that "it has been claimed many times". Anyway, if you base your work on youtube, that would account for much of what you say. You need a good baseline against which you can judge the good from the bad. You'll find The Celts, A Very Short Introduction by Barry Cunliffe very useful. He's an achnowledged researcher and the Very Short Introduction is a series written for non academic readers.
 
May 2019
202
Salt Lake City, Utah
We have to be careful with terms like 'enslaved'. There are examples of higher status britons, so they are not slaves as in people working in chains, but they have a lower status. Most of this discussion is about the numbers though. How many died, either through fighting, famine or plague, how many migrated to the west or to Brittany and how many stayed in anglo saxon communities and continued to till the soil, this time for an anglo saxon landowner rather than his previous british land owner, who probably did move away along with his wife and family and other wealthier relatives. The fate of people who could make things which the anglo saxons liked, enamelled objects, glassware etc. is interesting. Everyone likes to have people around who are useful.
I wrote not "all" but "most were enslaved ". Landed slavery does not mean they were wearing chains. We might point out serfdom, in part, developed from the concept of 'slavery' or 'thralldom'.