Anglo-Saxons

I just heard Putin's latest speech. He actually mentioned this name, saying that the Nord Stream pipeline was destroyed by the Anglo-Saxons. I think it sounds weird, but I wonder how it sounds to an American (or British person).

I am writing an essay on the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, and the different theories surrounding it, with the main two being peaceful immigrants and violent invaders, and I need sources to support each. For violent invaders I've read both Bede and Gilda's, but I'm relatively lacking for immigrants which I've heard generally relies on evidence. If there are any articles or sources I could look at, or just an peices of info anyone knows it would be a great help!

The year 1066 and its consequences have been a disaster for the English language. So, I wrote ! “Anglish” is a linguistic thought experiment: what would English sound like without the loanwords introduced following the Norman invasion?

My name is Addison Siemon, I'm an American archaeologist and long-time Anglish enþusiast. Today, I launched Folkish Anglish: The English Tongue Without Outlandish Sway, the first textbook-style course on the Anglish experiment.

I thought some of you might be interested; this course has been designed as a beginner-intermediate resource, mostly to introduce readers to the subject of Anglish and linguistic purism in English. The course covers over 750 Anglish words across 15 chapters, and includes a breakdown of every word's etymology. To complete this course, you'll need to solve three murder mysteries using your Anglish skills. I've also included two glossaries, a phrasebook, and a sneak peek at my next project: a full-length novel written entirely in Anglish!

You can find my book ; I'm happy to answer any questions from the community!

And that's the source of a lot of conflict because of their history? Or was this just propaganda - if so, by who?

I've heard how Southern Elites with the institution of slavery were descendants of lower Norman nobility who essentially wanted to establish a feudal system in the South and Northern Elite were descendants of Anglo-Saxons who were more interested in establishing a democracy. I can't find much information on it, but I'm just curious if there's any validity to this to begin with?

Edit: Founded was a poor word choice, but I hope you understand what I mean.

The Angles and the Saxons came over in the mid 500s, mostly from Jutland. 250 years later, the Viking raiders came from the same location roughly. Was this evident to any contemporaneous accounts?

I've seen a lot of fantasy and alt-reality about the Viking and Anglo-Saxon war. In all of them, the Anglo-Saxons are the villains, despite the fact that they are the ones defending their home. Since this is fantasy, in some of the stories Thor himself is leading the attack, often the Vikings have monstrous allies that are still portrayed as justified. Of course, in fantasy you can do anything, but why does every author, scriptwriter, and game developer who covers this war in a fantasy context decide to make the victims of an invasion the villains?

Random Research Question: Did Anglo-Saxons Flog children as a form of primitive legal stenography?

The Evolution of Childhood, by Lloyd DeMause; A book whose thesis can best be described as - all men and most women before the year 1700 were first class monsters in their treatment of children (phrasing and inference mine)' cites John Thrupp's - The Anglo-Saxon Home 1862 for the following passages:

"The Anglo-Saxons believed not only that flogging stimulated industry, but that it had a specific action on the memory, such as particular drugs are known to have on certain organs of the human frame. If it were wished to impress any fact on a child's memory, it was told to him, and he was then well beaten, that on any occasion on which he has beaten afterwards, it might by the association of ideas recur to his mind." ...

"It was also customary, when it was wished to retain legal testimony of any ceremony, to have it witnessed by children, who then and there were flogged with unusual severity; which it was supposed would give additional weight to any evidence of the proceedings they might afterwards furnish."

(PDF):

(Find on Page 110, 115 PDF jump-to)

I can't tell from the way Thrupp arranges his footnotes who he's citing for this, but it seems to be the following work in Latin: () (Reginald Dunelm's Libellus)

• Don't take my word for it, check Thrupp before going fishing.

So, anyone interested in solving this puzzle?

As you may have seen, Cambridge university has recently said that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group.

The department at Cambridge also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots.

Here is a link to the article:

And here is a link to the post where I originally saw this, where the article can be found in full in the comments:

a quite a common criticism i been hearing from corners about this trailer is that Alfred and the Anglo-Saxons are potrayed as evil, for what? simply defending their land....while the Vikings are portrayed as good and noble.

defintelly caught me off guard a bit, but i doubt it's going to be this "black/white" in the final game

I was doing a bit of light reading about the continental Saxons. Two attributes of their society stood out to me.

Firstly, Bede's quote "the old (that is, the continental) Saxons have no king, but they are governed by several ealdormen (or satrapa) who, during war, cast lots for leadership but who, in time of peace, are equal in power."

Secondly, I saw a quote somewhere that the continental Saxons were allied with the Danes, although I can't find where I read this now.

So, my question is, are those two facts broadly correct? And if so, what changed when the Saxons arrived in Britain? Was the change to kingship and the eternal conflict with the Danes just a function of the scramble for land amidst the power vacuum of post-Roman Britain?

I use the Wordhord app, which gives me one new Old English word every day, and today the word is elpend meaning elephant. If the speakers of Old English had a word for elephant, they must have had some sort of interaction with elephants between 500 - 1100 AD right? What was that interaction exactly? Was it purely academic where they relied on descriptions of elephants from their Roman colonizers? Were there Anglo-Saxon explorers who had encountered the animal?

Thank you for any answers in advance.