Comments by "" (@sebe2255) on "450 AD: The Anglo-Saxon Invasion Of Dark Age Britannia" video.

@martavdz4972 Romans also barely left a legacy in what would become England. They left the Isle and their society was in decline and decay when the Anglo-Saxons invaded/settled. There genetic legacy is nonexistent and their cultural legacy was extremely limited. A 3% north african result on a dna test also wouldn’t be explained by a few Romans who might have stayed. Their numbers would have been so incredibly low that their genetic traces would are long gone, and certainly not at 3%.
2
@helenamcginty4920 That makes no sense. Old English has virtually no traces from any Britonic language. And you should seriously doubt that the Britons would just abandon their entire language and cultural identity just to do some trading. It is the fundamental flaw in this trading theory making it almost certainly false. (On top of modern genetic research also confirming a large Anglo-Saxon settlement)
2
No he doesn’t, Germanic is a far better term for a whole lot of distinct peoples, many of whom never identified as German or even explicitly Germanic. Anglo-Saxons, those that moved to Britain were never German by any definition
1
@ Except it doesn’t, German, in English, specifically refers to an identity of certain Germanic peoples. This “German” identity also didn’t exist yet in the 5th century. Germanic, in English, refers to a broad group of tribes and people that speak or spoke related languages or worshiped similar gods (often both). Angles and Goths were never German, in our modern way of classification they would be Germanic but even this is an identity they themselves never adopted specifically Germanic =/= German
1
@ And it was not German, they didn’t speak English. No Roman ever called anyone German. Germania or any other term the Romans used (which was also geographical and not always cultural) is obviously not directly matched to modern terms. And even if the Romans called them Germans, they themselves didn’t. It would just be a foreign name for disunited tribes, a derivative of which wouldn’t take hold as the name for a broader identity in the region for centuries. Just because the English name for a modern nation is derived from it doesn’t mean that Anglo-Saxons or Franks or hell Goths or Vandals were German, because they weren’t. Not to mention the Scandinavian Germanic tribes. They were Angles, or Saxons or Franks etc. Groups we now linguistically or culturally broadly lump together now, but they certainly didn’t do. German (11th century identity) is a subgroup of Germanic people (modern classical). Not the other way around. So no, Saxons and Franks didn’t speak German. They spoke Frankish or Old Saxon and they didn’t identify as German (until the development of the German identity, which the Anglo-Saxons and most Franks didn’t take part in but of course many other tribes did).
1
@ConradAinger Wow Tacitus wrote jn English? With English definitions of words? For the last time Germania is not Germany and Germani is not German. You completely missed the point. Anglo-Saxons were never German. And they never called themselves such. Bede refers to Germania. The “German” identity literally wouldn’t even exist on the continent for another 3-4 centuries and even then it would take another 4-5 for it to take hold. I assume you are German with a name like Conrad who feels the need to post-hoc claim tribes that weren’t German? Or are you merely ill-informed? Can you still get a refund on that degree?
1
Too few of then settled in Britain to leave a significant impact, and then many of those that did come over left whith Rome. And the ones that did settle in Britain often married with local Britons, meaning their “impact” was quickly diluted
1