Talk:Saxons

"some of whom conquered large parts of Great Britain"

This is a far from settled point. (Probably worthy of its own page). Put briefly, legends and much written history record an invasion but there is no physical evidence of one. I suggest changing the wording to:

"some of whom came to dominate large parts of Great Britain".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 

Rubbish. How did they get there except via an 'invasion'? The ancient literature is very clear that Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded England post-Roman evacuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.1 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm not a historian but the second paragraph seems wrong. It mentions Saxons have settled in the Americas. Does the writer mean that peoples that have Saxon ancestry would eventually settle in the America's? The way it is worded makes it seem like the original Saxon movement to Britain was followed by a Saxon movements elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.41.254 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It refers to the migrations of people from the northern parts of Germany, Plattdeutschers and Mennonites. Both speak/spoke Low Saxon which is the successor language of the old Saxon language. While many Plattdeutschers are indeed descendants of the old Saxons, the Mennonites originally were migrants from the Netherlands who settled in Prussia, aquired the local Low Saxon language and migrated to new places, keeping the Low Saxon language. But they can hardly be called "Saxons" for that.

I'd say the sentence should be removed. --::Slomox:: >< 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sassanidae or sassanian tribe of present day iraq,ruled by khosrau 11(crosroes) at the time of the declining roman empire in the 3rd century a.d. The split between the east and west Roman empire was followed by a sucession of poor quality emperors leaving the coffers empty and being attacked on all sides.During these toubled times the Sassanids traversed through the almost depopullated provinces of Dacia & Thrace, Uniting with the gothic tribes preparing an attack on Constantinople. This union was quickly rejected by the gothic federation of tribes. The Sassanians moved on along the danube into the ligurian (or burgundian area in france todays) To their neighbours,who were the Celts whose name for them name for them was Sassenachs, to the Romans they were Sassenau(x)corrupted into saxones,then to Saxons as they moved north away from the gothic hoards as they swept across southern europe.This was immediately preceding and during the Valentinian, Martian period. The savage nature of the tribe was born out by their treatment of the Britons occupying the heathlands south of the thames where they massacre everyone (as recorded later by Gildas)They gave the name to the word 'Assassin' and also 'Heathens'. This tribe has the attributes of a long face and dark brown or black eyes and long nose. The point being lower than the base of the nose. Their descendants can be noted as more numerous south of the thames today than the blond, ginger or light brown haired and blue eyed Engrian tribe who were not Saxon,ever. Due to attacks on the Scots and Picts by Egbert and his family, and his heathens, the Scot revived the name referring to the English as sassenachs in error —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.15.232 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. And the Sassanidae originally were from Atlantis. --::Slomox:: >< 10:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear! I'm afraid it is generally accepted that the word "assassin" comes from the Arabic, referring to the Nizari branch of the Ismā'īlī Shia founded by the Persian Hassan aṣ-Ṣabbaḥ during the Middle Ages, and called in Arabic: حشّاشين, ħashshāshīyīn.

I have made some changes to reflect the fact that there is little or no evidence of an invasion by people known as Saxons in sub-Roman Britain, rather it was a case of migration and assimilation. Boatgypsy (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Gaul -- More than I can manage

The section on Gaul was apparently written by a non-native speaker of English of only moderate skill and could use a serious rewrite. I corrected the last paragraph as best I could until I realised the entire section needs work. This correction should be undertaken by someone familiar with the field, not a casual reader.--Janko (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously written by one of those insecure French wannabe Germanics that invest and destroy English wiki pages. Behold the writeup anent Saxons in Gaul is almost the size of the writeups on the Saxons in Germany, the Netherlands and England itself PUT TOGETHER!. Utter stark, bonking madness.

Paganism

Thi is stated in the section on Paganism; "Something of early Saxon religious practices in Britain can be gleaned from place names. ", but the paragraph does not seem to go on to explain how this is so, and simply mentions the name of three counties. It seesm to need further explanation, or am I missing something? Ic fieldman (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Low German - High German

"The Saxons (Latin: Saxones, Old English: Seaxe, Old Saxon: Sahson, Low German: Sachsen)"

The Low German word for Saxons is "Sassen", the High German word is "Sachsen".

With kind regards from Lower Saxony --Rogerblech (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands

The article states that the Saxons occupied the territory south of the Frisians, but weren't the Frisians Saxons themselves? The medieval and modern Frisians have no connection to the ancient tribe of the Frisii, since they were resettled to a different location in Roman territory by the Romans in 296 AD. Perhaps someone could write a piece about the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Frisia?--62.195.142.3 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Saxon as an Aryan tribes

Hi I added a new part as Iranian Languages in Etymology I'll add more sources and passage soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekogreeko (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

== Saxon - Iranian Languag==l for any problem with the references , you can try :

the tribes' names In Avesta=

Notice: many sources are in another language (and it was about another language) and i try to give you a link for them:

Avesta: the Farvardin Yashts of the young Avesta

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%E2%80%8C%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%AA

The Avesta contains the names of various tribal groups who lived in proximity to each other. According to Prof. Gherardo Gnoli:’’Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht, Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’.[12] In the hymns of the Avesta, the adjective Tūrya is attached to various enemies of Zoroastrism like Fraŋrasyan (Shahnameh: Afrāsīāb). The word occurs only once in the Gathas, but 20 times in the later parts of the Avesta.

a b G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980 M. Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism. 3V. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. (Handbuch Der Orientalistik/B. Spuler)

Sagxni/Sagxoni or Sagsi or Saka.

Saka is available in Wikipedia

for Sagxi/Sagxoni/Sagsi (سَگزی) you can read :

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/far/hobbies/iran/Shahnameh/shahnameh_ch16.html

you can read the story of Esfandiyār & Rostam or you can see this persian source: http://ganjoor.net/index.php?s=%D8%B3%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C&author=4

the table

The Interpretation of Avesta,by Prof. Freydun Joneydi, 1965 not available online or The Perso-European Languages, Prof. Noxostin, Paris, 1906 but:

http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-f05d06f718054d64ad2ad78b58a0eeac-fa.html

you can use this link : http://fa.glosbe.com/fa/ae/

Iranian Languages

Editor Greekogreeko has introduced the idea that Saxon is Persian for son of a dog. I deleted the content, then reinstated it based on Greekogreeko's statements on my talk page. Since then another user has deleted the content again. I can't find evidence to support Greekogreeko's statements in the sources he provided, but being unable to read Farsi I may be missing something. The links provided do not seem to be about the idea that Saxon is Persian for son of a dog. Based on that and the unlikeliness of a connection between the word Saxon and Iranian languages, I think the section on "Iranian Languages" should stay deleted. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint User:Greekogreeko in that this theory cannot be part of the main article as long as it has not been at least reviewed by philologists specialised in Germanic languages. From what it looks like so far, it seems to be mostly WP:OR and so has no standing on WP. That's where it ends already. OR is a no-go. The theory about the Farsi counterpart to ابن كلب being in any way connected to the name of the Saxones, based on primary school "etymology", does not live up to the most basic standards of linguistic reconstruction. Semantically, it is pretty out there: leaving aside the Juan Juan, where "wriggling worms" is one of the more fanciful translations for the name given to them by the Chinese, I have yet to see a European ethnonym with a pejorative meaning, especially one that is clearly an endonym used by the people itself. Morphologically, it reminded me a little of Heinrich Leo (†1878), who came up with a politically charged but historically and etymologically fairly vapid notion that the Jutes were Getae, the Danes Dacians and the Saxons Saka. None of these equations have anything more to them than superficial -- and rather loose -- phonological similarities. Incidentally, the only one that he didn't inherit from mediaeval scribes, who had been trolling for similar-sounding ancient names long before him, was the one of the Saxons and the Saka, which he made up more or less on the spot. The present scholarly etymology (derived from sahs) is tentative and not a very happy affair, but preferable to what has been presented under "dog"+"son", which is just plain wrong: the Farsi word سگ (sag) is genetically related to German hund, Latin canis and Russian cобака (not sure there though) and was spā in Avestan, not "Dzag". The second part of the "etymology" presented makes even less sense. Sorry, but not on WP please. Trigaranus (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A peaceful invasion of England

From the article:

"Historians are divided about what followed: some argue that the takeover of southern Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxons was peaceful."

This is a breach of WP:UNDUE. Francis Pryor An archaeologist who specialises in British Pre-history has put forward the idea that there was no military invasion but a change in language etc by the locals adopting Saxon customs and culture voluntarily (like much of Europe taking to American styles and brands).

• Pryor, Francis (14 August 2010). "Britain AD - Episode 2: The Invasion That Never Was". BBC. Retrieved August 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ("YouTube copy". Retrieved August 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help));

Here are a couple of sources that dispute this. The first is a review of the book on which the documentary was based:

• Pryor, Francis. 2004. Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons. Great Britain: Harper Collins. 268 pages. 0007181868.
  • Howard M. Wiseman (School of Science, Griffith University, Australia) (May 2007). Celia Chazelle; Deanna Forsman (eds.). A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe (10) http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/reviews.html. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Drawing on his experience of archaeological studies of prehistoric cultural change, Pryor advocates applying the same methodology to this period. That is, he ignores the written records and tries to reconstruct post-Roman history from the archaeological record alone. The results are ludicrous.

The Wiseman review contains a lot more in a similar vein. The second is not a reliable source but it lays out the position and is worth quoting here on the talk page:

• Alex In Leeds (25 March 2012). "Review: Britain AD by Francis Pryor".

Essentially most historians buy into one of three theories on Anglo-Saxon England:

1. Anglo-Saxon invaders overran the entire country like locusts and wiped out the native Britons
2. Anglo-Saxons came over and set themselves up as a ruling elite over the native Britons
3. Anglo-Saxons never really came to England at all, the written sources are all wrong

Theory 1 was the traditional view but there’s little evidence or support for it now, Theory 2 is currently the mostly widely accepted view and fits the written, archaeological and DNA records best and Theory 3 is crackpot.

This book is based on Theory 3.

-- PBS (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

why on earth is the section on the Saxons in Gaul seemingly twice as big as the sections on Saxons in Britain and Germany put together!!!

also (going on maps depicting the borders of Gaul) it would seem a lot of the claimed Saxon presence in Gaul was actually in Belgicia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.234.70 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sassenach - What was it before 1771?

According to the text: [Sassenach] As employed by Scots or Scottish English-speakers today, it is usually used in jest, as a (friendly) term of abuse. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives 1771 as the date of the earliest written use of the word in English.

So was the word Sassenach used by Scots Gaelic speakers prior to 1771? If so did it mean English people, or just Lowland Scots, or both? And if it wasn't used by Gaelic Scots then what did they call Anglo-Saxon lowlanders both Scottish and English? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.119.178 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that date probably refers to the word in English use. OxfordDictionaries.com says that the word appears in English in the "early 18th century" [1]. Dictionary.com gives "1765-75" and "C18" [2]. Too bad they don't name the actual source that they consider preserves the first record of the word. According to some Gaelic scholars, like Wilson McLeod and John MacInnes, the Gaelic Sasannach was originally never used for Scottish Lowlanders, only for the English. Lowlanders were called Goill (singular Gall), as were Anglo-Normans. Originally, the Anglo-Normans in Ireland were called Saxain by the Irish. Search Google Books for "Sasannach Minority Languages and Cultural Diversity in Europe" - the first hit is the book Minority Languages and Cultural Diversity in Europe: Gaelic and Sorbian Perspectives, and on pages 81-82 it notes the use of Sasannach in Gaelic Scotland.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What Brianann said. The use of Sas-/Sax- itself in Goidelic can be traced a bit further back but doesn't actually occur that often (as opposed to gall which is incredibly common). The earliest I can find in a hurry is the dliged lenait saxain for goedelu in the Félire Óengusso with the authors death put at 823. Sas- is just a simplification of the Sax- cluster. But that far back sources are growing thin. A bit reminiscent of the Basques who traditionally just lumped any non-Basque language under Erdara and their speakers (French, Spanish, whoever) as Erdaldunak 'those who have a language other than Basque'. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"satrapa"?

Article currently states "they are governed by several ealdormen (or satrapa)", with "satrapa" linking to Satrap. Does this mean that the Saxons also refered to their ealdormen as "satrapa" (a word presumably etymologically related to satrap)? If so, that should be made clearer. Or is this a case of someone comparing ealdormen to satraps? In which case, i) is this a relevent analogy, ii) who is makign it, and iii) is "satrapa" s typo, or an alternative plural? Iapetus (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the word was only used by Bede to clarify what an ealdorman is. Who knows? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't have an opinion either way as to whether an infobox is needed in this article, but I would just like to comment on the map that was placed in the infobox. [3] I don't think it is a particularly good map. It shows the name of the ocean in French, and unless the reader is already familiar with that part of the world, the geographical bodies around the ocean give no hint of the modern countries there and so are unrecognizable. I'm sure a better map could be found. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Took out the Saxons/Sahson map spiked with the French words for the North Sea

Not the first time I have witnessed sneaky French-language-spiking of English language wiki pages. Often going for soft-targets like endonyms, abbreviations, maps and tables and suchlike nooks and crannys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.142.56 (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with maps using foreign languages on English WP. The other, more detailed map on the page does as well. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If what you swear is trustworthy, it is needlessly so anent this article. I bet you would find reason to fault this Saxon wiki article if it bore maps in the Zulu language or Esperanto. Bloody creepy Francophone deperados, always got to sneak in and put a corrupting French bent to any English language wiki, especially ones which happens to be on 'Germanic' stuff. The writeup on the so-called 'Saxons in Gaul' is almost bigger than the Saxons in Britain and Germany put together!, Effing nuts. Sad flipping wannabes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the map and I'm Dutch.. Point is that all the words but "Mer du Nord" are the same anyway. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The map has been restored to the article since. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Axones spelling issue

This is probably a better source, or at least gives context which could be useful. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saxons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203233532/http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm to http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

map in infobox

Does anyone else have concerns about this map which shows the Saxons covering all of the Danish peninsula and the whole Benelux coast? (And none of the French coast) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The map has an hidden agenda. It's basically French 'language spiking' of English wiki pages. Happens all over the place. So destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.6.193 (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The French language is not a valid concern. The use of maps with other languages happens all over Wikipedia because of the obvious convenience, and this obviously favours English more than any other language. It is also easy to fix that particular problem, because it is not controversial to translate a map. The reason for raising a question here is to see if there is consensus and/or controversy about the actual information in the map.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

For God's sake, why not just input an Anglo-Saxon map WITHOUT the unneeded, misleading and overbearing French "Mer du Nord" scrawled all over said illdrawn-looking map? The wretched French seem so desperate to be taken for northern Europeans. Spiteful, jealous, destructive vandals, pardon the pun.

No country has control over the maps on Wikipedia, and frankly what sane person would see the word "Mer du Nord" on a minor Wikipedia article as important to the "the French"? English speaking Wikipedia editors, just like the ones on other language versions, often use illustrations from other language versions of Wikipedia, simply cause it saves them from having to make a new one, but they can also very easily remove them. Before we replace a map though, the real question is "what with"? Is anyone aware of a better illustration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to replace the map, unaware of this controversy. I did it not because of the innocuous French words, but basically because it seemed grossly inaccurate. It includes under the term "Saxons" other Germanic peoples such as the Frisians, Angles and Jutes. The wording in the legend (Spread of Saxon and Anglo-Saxon reach around 530 AD) also gave the false impression that the "Anglo-Saxons" were the Saxons living in England. The Anglo- prefix in Anglo-Saxon refers to a people (the Angles), not to a place (England). —capmo (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the new map:

• It is not clear what the grey zone refers to near Flanders. Franks is written near it, but is obviously a term associated with a much bigger region.
• We are not showing any Saxons in coastal regions of France still, although such regions were also often reported.
• I am not sure if Romano-British is a common term, and one easy for everyone to understand. If I understand correctly the region with this name is intended to represent the most Romanized part of Britain, for example economically? I am not sure I've ever seen anyone give this region its own "ethnic" designation though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Concerning your comments: I frankly don't know why the area associated with the Franks is so small. This other map (to the right) labels this region as "Frankish coast", which makes more sense. It also depicts the Saxon presence on the coastal regions of France (in pinkish red). Would it be a better replacement for the previous map? —capmo (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth considering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Saxons in Gaul" - what about: Tin de Cornbeef?

Haps Tin de Cornbeef tun/enclouse of the cornbooth. Seriously, Cottun in Normandy is haps a false cognate -on being the French diminutive ending. Also don't forget the English lastname: "Cotton" bears the plural ending seen in "oxen" and therefore means cottages.

It reads:

"Different Bessin toponyms were identified as typically Saxon, ex : Cottun (Coltun 1035–1037 ; Cola 's "town"). It is the only place name in Normandy that can be interpreted as a -tun one (English -ton; cf. Colton)"

The sentence you mention seems to be sourced to a French publication that looks appropriate at first sight?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tin de Cornbeef - tis nowt but a little dig and madeup placename wordplay anent the Francophone's herein desperately overstated go at linking France with the Saxons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.237.140 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of past tense

Why does it read "The Saxons were...." while for comparison the article about Frisians reads "The Frisians are...."? While it is true that the Saxons don't have a state of their own (Neither do the Frisians by the way), the Low-Saxon language is still alive. I do not read anything about Saxons becoming extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.38.250 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this is because the article not about a Saxon language, but about Saxons generally, as a people. And the difference between the two concerning the present tense is that there are still people thinking of themselves as Frisians, whereas I think not many northern Germans think of themselves as Saxons? Indeed a person being called a Saxon today is more likely to be from the Bundesland of that name which has no ethnic or ancestral connotation. Our article on that subject says "The area of the modern state of Saxony should not be confused with Old Saxony, the area inhabited by Saxons".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Saxons on the Balkans

There is no mention that some Saxons also moved to the Balkans in the 13th century (Serbia and Bosnia), working as miners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.124.128 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that discusses this, you can WP:CITE that source and add the information yourself. It would be a useful addition! --Jayron32 12:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Baltic or Balkan - please don't mix these up

Second paragraph in Saxon article, see hyperlink Baltic when the wrong map appears - the Balkan map. Please know that the Baltic is east of the indicated Saxon territory along the Baltic Sea and not in the Balkans. During the Teutonic Knights time(1235-1410) and Hanseatic trading times(1100-1450), Saxons did settle east among existing original tribes like the Wends, Pruzzi (Prussians), Kurs (Courland), all the way to today's Estonia. The majority of German-speaking settlement eastward along the coast, came after the plaque of 1708-10 where half the existing population had died out (due to contact with the Nordic war/Swedish deluge) and the King's envoys invited new settlement promoting religious tolerance.

Sachsen/Saxony and Niedersachsen/Lower Saxony are still German provinces that follow the Elbe River. I am aware that a contingent of Saxons from Magdeburg were sent in 1183 via St.Maurice in Valais, Switz. to settle as forest workers in Abonndance, Haute Savoie and along Lake Geneva. Their personal Germanic family names stem from the tribe of Saxons that they come from.

Re the other map in the article that shows Saxons all over Denmark? I thought that the Angles came from there? Hence Anglo-saxon? and Angloland meaning England? Old Saxons went from today's Hamburg to Dresden? 18:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Pillkallerin (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea</ref>

References

Moved from lede

Their earliest weapons and clothing south of the Thames were based on late Roman military fashions, but later immigrants north of the Thames showed a stronger North German influence.

The cited source only supports the second part of the sentence, the one about North German influence, not anything about the Roman nature of 'the earliest weapons and clothing (of the Saxons south of the Thames)'. In addition, it may be noted that the whole sentence seems to be intended to cast doubt upon the standard 'migration hypothesis' about the origin of the insular Saxons - I can't think of any other reason to place such a detail in the lede at all - whereas the cited source explicitly defends that very hypothesis. In general, Andrew Lancaster's whole series of edits, from which this originates, seem to be intended to minimise or deny any connection between the insular Saxons and the continental Saxons, as well as between insular Germanic speakers/culture and continental Germanic speakers/culture in general (unless, I suppose, the connection should be that the Germanic languages originated in London and spread from there to the barbarous continent). I don't know whether this now-fashionable tendency is more connected to Germanophobia, Romanophilia (what with the constant emphasis on the Britons' overhyped 'Romanisation' rather than their Celtic vernacular) or mere English essentialism ('we have always been in England and been just as Romance-influenced as we are now').--77.85.55.14 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you quote from Halsall to help me understand where you think I am wrong? Also note that you have removed and changed sourced material, and not everything was from Halsall. Have you read Springer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Map

The opening map shows the Jutes in Kent. Didn't they also settle the Isle of Wight?

See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wihtwara for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.25.221 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)