Are the English Anglo-Saxons?

[King Edward III]

Is it correct to say the English are Anglo-Saxons?

Even today we label our relations with other nations as Anglo-XX. And if you ask the average man in the street who the English are descended from, you'll almost certainly get Anglo-Saxons. I grew up believing the same, the belief seems to be endemic in the English national psyche.

I ask because I seem to remember reading about a study on the genetic history of the British Isles that concluded that the population hadn't much changed throughout history.

So, is this true, have we all fallen for the idea that we're all related from Germanic invaders? Or is it true?

Furthermore, if we have tricked ourselves, then, why have we?

[antaeus]

its the difference between culture and genetics.

the english are a mixed bunch.. we can get the geneticists in there who will bring light on the anglo saxon conquests after the fall of the roman empire..

but certainly the english are anglo saxon. even if genetically, they are a mixture of other peoples...

any surviving local britons in england were culturally absorbed by the conquering germanic tribes. anglo saxon is a cultural term.

eg. if a saxon raider takes a british wife, has a half british genetic child who is brought up fully saxon culturally.. that child takes a british wife they have a 1/4 saxon child who is brought up fully saxon culturally.. etc etc....

its got nothing to do with trying to claim germanic heritage or any 18th century notion of the romantic arian races... its simply the way cultural absorption happens some of the time. the language we are all speaking is the proof of it.

[Ardruire Iacób]

If the Irish language is to be believed, yes. You dirty Sasanach, you.

[King Edward III]

@ Ruire

Yeah, that was another point I was going to bring up, from my understanding a lot of languages refer to the English as Saxons.

@ antea

So would the established logic be that while the population did mix the conquest of the Anglo-Saxons was more cultural then genetically?

[Azog 150]

As antea said, I think its more a cultural thing then anyone else. There is still plenty of people in England who are descended from Celts way down the line, and then a very small minority possibly descended from Romans and Normans. However, I still think the majority are Saxon descended, so it is also a genetic term as well.

[Watchman]

The last I heard the genetic makeup hadn't actually meaningfully changed in most parts since the last Ice Age...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The last I heard the genetic makeup hadn't actually meaningfully changed in most parts since the last Ice Age...

nonsense, there's probably no genetic makeup from the last ice age left. First the celts, then the romans, then the angles and saxons, then the normans

[Manco]

nonsense, there's probably no genetic makeup from the last ice age left. First the celts, then the romans, then the angles and saxons, then the normans

lulz, way to ignore Ferrets.

You do realize all those people mainly descended from the same Iberian refuge ?

[Kagemusha]

nonsense, there's probably no genetic makeup from the last ice age left. First the celts, then the romans, then the angles and saxons, then the normans

Not nonsense at all.More genetics are being studied.More obvious it becomes that invasion of certain population to certain area has very little effect on the genetic make up of population of the area. Also from the populations you mention. Both Celtic and Romans had the R1B as their haplogroup. The Saxons, Angles and to an lesser extent Normans that already were heavily carrying R1B, brought some R1A to British isles. The fact is that during invasions the defeated populations were hardly massacred to a man,woman and child. But mainly the ruling elite was only replaced.

[gaius valerius]

As antea said, I think its more a cultural thing then anyone else. There is still plenty of people in England who are descended from Celts way down the line, and then a very small minority possibly descended from Romans and Normans. However, I still think the majority are Saxon descended, so it is also a genetic term as well.

It's highly unlikely that the Saxon invaders toppled the natives who had lived in relative peace for over 3-4 centuries in terms of actual numbers. The majority of the english hence will be closer related to the original inhabitants then to the later invaders. It is indeed mainly cultural. As soon as the 5th century the language and culture of the Saxons became dominant, for one because they were one of the most important political players after the collapse - though it wasn't that drastic - of Roman rule.

Do you know something about Normadic settlers in England being compared with the Anglo-Saxon tribes that settled in England massively?

Hardly "massive". The original 'invaders' in general came in small groups. It is a myth that the migrations of that period were anything close to grotesque. And even so, in the case they did amount to a significant number, it still wouldn't be enough in comparison with the native population already present.

[neoptolemos]

Hardly "massive". The original 'invaders' in general came in small groups. It is a myth that the migrations of that period were anything close to grotesque. And even so, in the case they did amount to a significant number, it still wouldn't be enough in comparison with the native population already present.

I don't disagree.i should have put " " the word,nayway the number of Anglo-Saxonic settlers was greater than of the Normans wasn't it?


I believe that the cultural and linguistic impact (of Anglo-Saxons)was far more significant than the actual demographics

[Londinium]

I don't disagree.i should have put " " the word,nayway the number of Anglo-Saxonic settlers was greater than of the Normans wasn't it?


I believe that the cultural and linguistic impact (of Anglo-Saxons)was far more significant than the actual demographics

Much much greater, the Normans basically only immigrated in small numbers, they replaced the upper class Anglo-Saxons and ruled over a majority Anglo-Saxon population, think of apartheid era South Africa but with a much smaller ruling class and you've got it. Their genetic imprint isn't really that large at all on the English and being originally Vikings anyways, they weren't exactly that distantly related from the Angles, Jutes and Saxons anyways.

Hardly "massive". The original 'invaders' in general came in small groups. It is a myth that the migrations of that period were anything close to grotesque. And even so, in the case they did amount to a significant number, it still wouldn't be enough in comparison with the native population already present.

And *sigh* genetic surveys have shown again and again theres a substantial Germanic influence on the English people, they did move en masse and the genetic record shows it.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Well, up to 40% of East Anglians are of Germanic origin. Locality matters a lot, too. Besides, if you're not Sasanaigh, you're Angli.

[Watchman]

Well, up to 40% of East Anglians are of Germanic origin. Locality matters a lot, too. Besides, if you're not Sasanaigh, you're Angli.

"Most places". IIRC East Anglia is one of those parts that got depopulated by persistent rAIDS and trolling by nasty people in good ships and ended up largely abandoned by the natives, a detail that was greatly appreciated by land-starved folks with ships across the sea who didn't waste much time filling the void.

[Ardruire Iacób]

"Most places". IIRC East Anglia is one of those parts that got depopulated by persistent rAIDS and trolling by nasty people in good ships and ended up largely abandoned by the natives, a detail that was greatly appreciated by land-starved folks with ships across the sea who didn't waste much time filling the void.

And...? I never said "most places", I did however say that locality matters.

[Manco]

This sort of questions stems from the confusion around the concepts of genetic descendancy, ethnicity and culture I think.

Genetically speaking most populations have remained largely the same since the neolithic (I think it's that, could also be mesolithic, anyways after the last glacial maximum when humanity had populated all continents). In that sense the British are still mainly Brythonic or whatever the original inhabitants were.

The problem is in the word ethnicity, which mixes genetics with culture. An ethnic German might genetically be a 100% Celtic, but since he's culturally German, raised as a German, his family believes they are Germans and regarded as Germans no one realizes, nor does it amtter thay are actually Celtic.
Ethnicity is self-determined and perceived, and ultimately completely relative and subjective. Where as genetics is objective, you either are, or are not belonging to a genetic population.

(the Germanic migrations are one of the few examples of relatively modern migrations and population changes, but even those are smaller than most think. Except for (parts of) Belgium, Switzerland, AUstria, basically borderregions, nothing much will have changed. B

[MaximiIian]

I've read that the genetic makeup of the British Isles has not changed much since the Neolithic. Rather, recurring invasions of foreign tribes replaced the language, the culture, and the ruling class of the Isles.

[Ardruire Iacób]

I've read that the genetic makeup of the British Isles has not changed much since the Neolithic. Rather, recurring invasions of foreign tribes replaced the language, the culture, and the ruling class of the Isles.

Read my post, please.

[Manco]

In general I thinkabout 80% of the British genepool can be retraced to the original population, atl east that's what I reads ages ago.Still 20% change is actually a lot.

[Ardruire Iacób]

In general I thinkabout 80% of the British genepool can be retraced to the original population, atl east that's what I reads ages ago.Still 20% change is actually a lot.

It averages 80%, some places are in the upper 90s (Wales, the Scots highlands, and Ireland), and a few as low as the 50s.