Comments by "" (@sebe2255) on "The New Culture Forum" channel.

@charleshayes2528 Pedantic point. Just because in the 5th century there was no common culture or identity yet doesn’t mean it didn’t develop later. And Angles and Saxons were extremely closely related anyway. You are just trying to create categories to create division where there is none
2
Saxony isn’t actually Saxon, but aside from that a name isn’t really an argument. Paris exists, but the Parisii don’t. In the case of England though there is obviously a large anglo-saxon element in the culture and people. English is predominantly Germanic Anglo-Saxon and genetic tests show that the average english person is about 30% descended from those tribes.
2
@dehistoriapisciumfish7639 Anglo-Saxon is literally a term used by Alfred the Great. It is contemporary, no matter what fake historians think. On top of that Angles and Saxons (and Jutes and Frisians) were not that different. Another group of people, the Franks, was also a merger of a few Germanic tribes like the Chatti and Chauci. These closely related tribes merged and created new identities all the time.
2
@davepx1 And yet they basically creates a new anglo-saxon culture anyway. You are just being pedantic
2
@davepx1 The country’s other population groups? Who would that be? The Britonic people? Because if you mean them it is actually shocking to most historians and linguists how little of their culture and language influenced old English. England is absolutely an Anglo-Saxon creation. The Germanic invaders and settlers saw themselves as closely related, and they called the Britonic people Welsh, meaning foreigners. In the same way that Walloons are called foreigner, and Latin speakers in southern Germany and Italy were too. The convergence was between closely related North Sea West Germanic tribes that had a very similar culture, language and religion. Aka Anglo-Saxons if you want to group them together. Angles, Saxons and Jutes if you want to be pedantic
2
@anthonyseymour1403 Wrong, there is more Anglo-Saxon than viking on average, 30% anglo saxon
2
@charleshayes2528 Angles and Saxons formed the dominant cultural element though. Sorry to the forgotten Britonic tribes that left almost no traces of themselves in the English language and culture
2
@raven-sf3di Not really, the Celtic element got whiped out. Genetically it didn’t but that doesn’t mean anything. All northwest europeans are closely related anyway
1
Most of the time people stayed and died though
1
@garrywynne1218 But the Britonic people got driven out, killed or assimilated to the point where at least for England they don’t matter anymore, and haven’t since like the 8th century
1
Not while they give you bread and games
1
@charleshayes2528 It is a pedantic distinction. They weren’t one tribe when they arrived in Britain but they did become it. The Chauci and the Chati weren’t one tribe either, but they still united to form the Franks
1
@charleshayes2528 I don’t think it is misuse though. Not only is Anglo-Saxon a contemporary term (used by Alfred the Great) it is basically just a catch all term for the Angles, Saxons (and Jutes and Frisians). Who while belonging to different tribes were closely related. Not only were they closely related, they recognized this in their own time and tbey ended up forming a completely united culture, people and country. It is like saying German is a misused term because the country is made up of Saxons, Bavarians, Franks, Thuringians and Allemanic tribes.
1
@charleshayes2528 Well in a historical context it would not include Danes or Normans. But yes, in a modern context when people are referring to the modern English (Again English is a term already used by the historical Anglo-Saxons when their identities statted to fully unite in the 9th century) then yes it would include Normans and Danes. And I see what you meant regarding the DNa, no worries I understand now!
1
@fluffypineapple790 eople that weren’t kings or priests didn’t write in 800 ad lol Anglo-Saxon is a contemporary concept, and, Angles and Saxons weren’t even that different to begin with. They wouldn’t be the first nor the last West Germanic tribes to form a new common identity
1
@davepx1 Frisians and especially Franks were a small component, and Frisians are most likely a branch of Saxons, and they are definitely a North Sea West Germanic people. Franks would at least be Wesser-Rhine Germanic, but even there, Dutch is the second closest language to English, and Dutch is the modern form of Frankish. So these were all closely related people. Them being politically disunited doesn’t change that I never said the modern English aren’t Celtic genetically. It is your side that is spending a lot of effort try to prove the opposite, in vain because luckily for us now genetic evidence has disproven the small settlement theory Also placenames are not the same as words in a language. The native Americans were whiped out completely in large parts of the Americas, even more so than Celts in Britain, yet a lot of their place names remain. But if that is too far, Roman names in Britain don’t mean that Romans had any significant impact on Old English or on the people of Britain. Given that they had all left before the Anglo-Saxons invaded. In the actual spoken language of Old English though there are like 6 known loanwords from Celtic Britonic languages. Which is shockingly little Archeological evidence in this case is limited and people use it to just try and prove beliefs they already had. We don’t have any archeological evidence for the battle of Hastings either but that battle definitely happened. And that is a case where you know where and what to look for. So a lack of burials or graves on either side doesn’t prove anything on its own. It can be used as an indicator, but when that indicator is directly contradicted by genetics, contemporary sources and linguistic theories, it has to take a back seat Is it likely bede exaggerated? Yes. Does that mean anglo saxons don’t exist or that there was almost no Germanic settlement in Britain? From the most recent evidence we have, no it doesn’t
1