Anglo-Saxons in Britain

[TheGoodOld BritishChap]

I have a question.
It seems like there is fighting between the Saxons and Romans in Britain, and I am not aware of emergent British factions. Why is this, when the Anglo-Saxons arrived after the Romans left Britain?
Or am I missing information?
Thanks!

[Tillo]

There actually is a emerging british faction: Britain. And just like emergent factions such as Gaul and Macedon, it is a roman-ish faction.

[TheGoodOld BritishChap]

Ah thanks.
I think that Britain was split up into lots of small countries just before the invasion. Even groups seen in Rome 2, like the Iceni, ruled parts of it. Here's a picture: http://www.euratlas.net/history/euro...Northwest.html

[Lugotorix]

I have a question.
It seems like there is fighting between the Saxons and Romans in Britain, and I am not aware of emergent British factions. Why is this, when the Anglo-Saxons arrived after the Romans left Britain?
Or am I missing information?
Thanks!

They began raiding and then colonizing immediately after the Romans 'left'. First there was a petition to for reinforcements, which was denied by the WRE, Valentinian I believe. They were basically left to fend for themselves. Then Ambrosius Aurelianus was the last governor probably based at Vindiacorum (near Corinium) who actually may have fought against the Saxons at Baton Hill. That was the most famous battle of Romans and British against the Saxons generally attributed to Arthur, but he also fought no fewer than seven battles near Hadrian's wall mostly against the Saxons in Goddodin (east of Rheged in Scotland), only three of the major nine battles were in the south, around Wales. They were also fighting the Irish and Dal Riada during this time, which were a major raiding problem on the Welsh coast and interior. In fact there was a late Roman era Irish kingdom in Wales. The only reason why the Saxons were 'invited' to Britain to begin with (along with the Angles) was because Hengist and Horsa were brought in to help the Vortigern, the regional British chief of eastern Britain, fight the Gaels and Picts. This backfired big-time, and since they brought their women and animals with them, they decided to stay and take all of the country that they could through settlement and war.

[damien007]

Could anyone explain why Saxon's seem to get all the attention in games like this? When in reality it seems the Angles would have been the more culturally dominant of the two, seeing as England and the English were named after them and not the saxons.

[Tillo]

I'm no expert on this topic but what i've read about the angles ans saxons, the saxons were the ones mentioned the most by the romans. It could be that the romans could not differentiate between the different germanic groups coming to britain and called them all 'saxon'. And the term England does not appear untill several centuries after the fall of Rome. Historically the saxons were more influential then the angles, so i can understand that CA prefered to use the saxons as a playable faction.

[damien007]

But if the saxons were the more influential, then why was it called England (Angle Terra) after the angles, and not say saxland after the saxons.

[Hresvelgr]

No idea, but before the Norman Conquest the predominant Anglo-Saxon kingdom was Wessex, as in the kingdom of the West Saxons, and it was Wessex that unified England and ruled. Also, the Saxons (and other Germanic tribes) had been doing many raids into Roman Britain, perhaps the most notable being the Great Conspiracy which took place shortly before the start of Attila wherein Saxons, Picts, Scots and a bunch of other tribes conspired to raid Roman territory all at once.

[TheGoodOld BritishChap]

They began raiding and then colonizing immediately after the Romans 'left'. First there was a petition to for reinforcements, which was denied by the WRE, Valentinian I believe. They were basically left to fend for themselves. Then Ambrosius Aurelianus was the last governor probably based at Vindiacorum (near Corinium) who actually may have fought against the Saxons at Baton Hill. That was the most famous battle of Romans and British against the Saxons generally attributed to Arthur, but he also fought no fewer than seven battles near Hadrian's wall mostly against the Saxons in Goddodin (east of Rheged in Scotland), only three of the major nine battles were in the south, around Wales. They were also fighting the Irish and Dal Riada during this time, which were a major raiding problem on the Welsh coast and interior. In fact there was a late Roman era Irish kingdom in Wales. The only reason why the Saxons were 'invited' to Britain to begin with (along with the Angles) was because Hengist and Horsa were brought in to help the Vortigern, the regional British chief of eastern Britain, fight the Gaels and Picts. This backfired big-time, and since they brought their women and animals with them, they decided to stay and take all of the country that they could through settlement and war.

Ah I see. Thanks. But still, in the game Rome seems to really own that land, and with Roman soldiers. Shouldn't there just be some Romans and roman governors left, whilst the country is divided into Romano-British factions?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There actually is a emerging british faction: Britain. And just like emergent factions such as Gaul and Macedon, it is a roman-ish faction.

Wait.. you're saying Gaul and Macedon are emergent factions in TW: Attila? Areas that thought of themselves as nothing but Roman?

[Lugotorix]

Ah I see. Thanks. But still, in the game Rome seems to really own that land, and with Roman soldiers. Shouldn't there just be some Romans and roman governors left, whilst the country is divided into Romano-British factions?

The Saxons hadn't gotten there yet. It was still firmly under Roman control. The Saxon fleets are for gameplay purposes. The Angles were a huge factor, as well as the Jutes in the south, but the Saxons did most of the colonizing in central and east England. It didn't take them long to reach Wales. There's a reason why it's 'Anglo-Saxon' here in the U.S.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Wait.. you're saying Gaul and Macedon are emergent factions in TW: Attila? Areas that thought of themselves as nothing but Roman?

They are new faction in the sense of provinces which get independence like the Gallic Empire (260-74 AD). It sounds weird first, but it is actually not that weird in a civil war like situation.

[TheGoodOld BritishChap]

The Saxons hadn't gotten there yet. It was still firmly under Roman control. The Saxon fleets are for gameplay purposes. The Angles were a huge factor, as well as the Jutes in the south, but the Saxons did most of the colonizing in central and east England. It didn't take them long to reach Wales. There's a reason why it's 'Anglo-Saxon' here in the U.S.

Yes but you'd think that Britain would be full of emergent factions which would appear as Roman control collapsed. I know they were still there at the point where the game starts, but you'd think history would be able to follow its actual course in the game.
The Romans left very shortly after the game starts. Yet in the game there are no emergent factions to replace them.

So it will be a war between the Western Roman Empire and the Anglo-Saxons. When it should be Anglo-Saxons and various Romano-British factions that have emerged.

[Nelfe]

Wait.. you're saying Gaul and Macedon are emergent factions in TW: Attila? Areas that thought of themselves as nothing but Roman?

Yes they are. For the gaulish faction, I think we must take it like the Gallic Empire of the IIIrd century, or the short-lived empire of the usurper Constantine III under Honorius (it's confirmed that they will use the same roman pattern for units/buildings of the WRE).

For Macedon... I give up :p

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It would make more sense to have a recurring "Usurper" faction. And then also a "Bacaudae" faction.

[Gauloisier de la Gauloiserie]

In french england is still called Angleterre, la terre des Angles, the land of the Angles.

[Drahcir]

If I am correct in my statement the Saxons also just breaded like rabbits and just out re-produced the Britons. 90% of the British DNA before the Saxon period was just pushed out to small pockets and villages due to conquest and the sort.

[Linke]

If I am correct in my statement the Saxons also just breaded like rabbits and just out re-produced the Britons. 90% of the British DNA before the Saxon period was just pushed out to small pockets and villages due to conquest and the sort.

It seems that the Angles and Saxons originally coming in small warbands replaced the rulers of the many small Romano British kingdoms wich were possibly based around the Roman Civitas wich were based in turn around pre conquest Brittish tribes.

It is unlikely that many families moved there but the early anglo Saxon armies consisted of many small warbands. The leaders of these set them selves up as the rulers of the pre existing civitas, eventualy creating the larger well known kingdoms through conquest of their neigbours while many ordinary warriors must have taken local wifes thus spreading their dna.

[TheGoodOld BritishChap]

Actually, there were far less than they used to think. The Angles and Saxons probably formed a ruling elite whilst the Roman and British people continued to make up a large portion of the population. It may have been over 50%.

[Ecthelion]

But if the saxons were the more influential, then why was it called England (Angle Terra) after the angles, and not say saxland after the saxons.

This is a good point.
"England" is probably more appropriately named "Saxony".