3 ms·

There is archeological evidence that Saxons and other Germans had started settling in Britain well before the Romans officially left. They had almost successful

• cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  There's a lot here to respond to, and in the end it's mostly speculation, but a few things. In regards to the comparison between Franks and Goths and Saxons, it's not really the same. In those cases they took over the existing Roman state and continued its administration, leaving the institiutions of civil society much the same and even adopting Latin as a language and Roman cultural practices for themselves within a couple generations. By the time the Saxons arrived en masse in what is now England the existing Roman administration had pretty much collapsed. That seems to be the archaeological evidence in my recent reading: drastic declines in the economic vibrancy of British communities. Things like amphorae and other mediterannean trade goods vanishing. Rich people burying their wealth to hide it from invaders. And, yeah, the stories told by Gildas & St Patrick, our only real contemporary accounts from this general period, seem to agree with this: decline of local British power, retreating into small cloistered communities, Saxon (and other Germanic) raiders wea continual pest even in Roman times, yes, but after the departure of the Roman administration it becoming drastically more aggrivated, the locals were incapable of defending themselves, and the British turned to Germanic mercenaries as a defense (a common Roman tactic). Which predictably backfired. I've read two books commenting on this period of British history recently, and both disagree remarkably on the degree of cultural and physical replacement. But on the whole the genetic and archaeological and linguistic evidence seems to me to support the statements by Gildas and St Patrick: the British were on the whole replaced & expelled (to Wales, Cornwall or Brittany), or exterminated. This is reflected in part by the fact that only a few Saxon settlements carried forward on top of existing Romano-British settlements, and most adopted new names entirely. Even some prominent ones like London were left pretty much uninhabited for generations before being re-settled later.
  • wwtrv 4y ago
    Population replacement seems to had been significant but in no way total, the ancestry of modern the population of eastern England (which was conquered/settled first) is around 40% Anglo-Saxon/Continental Germanic (however the influx of Germans continued well after the 5th century and we can't really genetically distinguish the Saxons/other Germans and the Vikings/Norse whose came centuries later). Of course we don't really know what happened to the local people, many might have fled west or to Armorica, there are some hypothesis that the native Briton population was more heavily hit by the plague and/or that south east England was already significantly depopulated during the 4th century, many were undoubtedly murdered however it seems that the majority (or at least a number exceeding that of the invading Saxons) survived and were integrated into the new Saxon society one way or the other. There is evidence that there was at least some degree of peaceful coexistence between Saxons and local British at least in the early periods of settlement. There are burial sites where both genetically British and German (or mixed) people were buried together, with identical grave goods and seemingly with no distinction. This would indicate that at least some local people adopted Saxon customs and language and were accepted as equal members of their society. However this is not exactly conclusive, there are also many segregated burial sites so the type of interaction between the local Britons and the German invaders/settlers varied by area and time period, it took them well over 200 years to almost fully conquer the territory of modern England. Gildas and St Patrick were members of the Romano-British landowning elite which was displaced by the Saxons, I'm trying to dispute their authenticity but their experience might not have been representative of the majority of local people (who were never fully romanized or integrated into the roman society). It would not be completely surprising if local Britons decided that they would be better off by 'switching sides' and adopting Saxon/German culture. Of course we don't know how widespread and voluntary the process could had been, however according to genetic evidence it must have occurred to some extent.
    • cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Sometimes I fantasize we'll unearth some long lost documents and get more background on how things were then. For some reason the period fascinates me. But, yeah, unlikely.