Talk:Saxons

"some of whom conquered large parts of Great Britain"

This is a far from settled point. (Probably worthy of its own page). Put briefly, legends and much written history record an invasion but there is no physical evidence of one. I suggest changing the wording to:

"some of whom came to dominate large parts of Great Britain".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 

Untitled

I'm not a historian but the second paragraph seems wrong. It mentions Saxons have settled in the Americas. Does the writer mean that peoples that have Saxon ancestry would eventually settle in the America's? The way it is worded makes it seem like the original Saxon movement to Britain was followed by a Saxon movements elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.41.254 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It refers to the migrations of people from the northern parts of Germany, Plattdeutschers and Mennonites. Both speak/spoke Low Saxon which is the successor language of the old Saxon language. While many Plattdeutschers are indeed descendants of the old Saxons, the Mennonites originally were migrants from the Netherlands who settled in Prussia, aquired the local Low Saxon language and migrated to new places, keeping the Low Saxon language. But they can hardly be called "Saxons" for that.

I'd say the sentence should be removed. --::Slomox:: >< 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sassanidae or sassanian tribe of present day iraq,ruled by khosrau 11(crosroes) at the time of the declining roman empire in the 3rd century a.d. The split between the east and west Roman empire was followed by a sucession of poor quality emperors leaving the coffers empty and being attacked on all sides.During these toubled times the Sassanids traversed through the almost depopullated provinces of Dacia & Thrace, Uniting with the gothic tribes preparing an attack on Constantinople. This union was quickly rejected by the gothic federation of tribes. The Sassanians moved on along the danube into the ligurian (or burgundian area in france todays) To their neighbours,who were the Celts whose name for them name for them was Sassenachs, to the Romans they were Sassenau(x)corrupted into saxones,then to Saxons as they moved north away from the gothic hoards as they swept across southern europe.This was immediately preceding and during the Valentinian, Martian period. The savage nature of the tribe was born out by their treatment of the Britons occupying the heathlands south of the thames where they massacre everyone (as recorded later by Gildas)They gave the name to the word 'Assassin' and also 'Heathens'. This tribe has the attributes of a long face and dark brown or black eyes and long nose. The point being lower than the base of the nose. Their descendants can be noted as more numerous south of the thames today than the blond, ginger or light brown haired and blue eyed Engrian tribe who were not Saxon,ever. Due to attacks on the Scots and Picts by Egbert and his family, and his heathens, the Scot revived the name referring to the English as sassenachs in error —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.15.232 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. And the Sassanidae originally were from Atlantis. --::Slomox:: >< 10:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear! I'm afraid it is generally accepted that the word "assassin" comes from the Arabic, referring to the Nizari branch of the Ismā'īlī Shia founded by the Persian Hassan aṣ-Ṣabbaḥ during the Middle Ages, and called in Arabic: حشّاشين, ħashshāshīyīn.

I have made some changes to reflect the fact that there is little or no evidence of an invasion by people known as Saxons in sub-Roman Britain, rather it was a case of migration and assimilation. Boatgypsy (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Gaul -- More than I can manage

The section on Gaul was apparently written by a non-native speaker of English of only moderate skill and could use a serious rewrite. I corrected the last paragraph as best I could until I realised the entire section needs work. This correction should be undertaken by someone familiar with the field, not a casual reader.--Janko (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Paganism

Thi is stated in the section on Paganism; "Something of early Saxon religious practices in Britain can be gleaned from place names. ", but the paragraph does not seem to go on to explain how this is so, and simply mentions the name of three counties. It seesm to need further explanation, or am I missing something? Ic fieldman (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Low German - High German

"The Saxons (Latin: Saxones, Old English: Seaxe, Old Saxon: Sahson, Low German: Sachsen)"

The Low German word for Saxons is "Sassen", the High German word is "Sachsen".

With kind regards from Lower Saxony --Rogerblech (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands

The article states that the Saxons occupied the territory south of the Frisians, but weren't the Frisians Saxons themselves? The medieval and modern Frisians have no connection to the ancient tribe of the Frisii, since they were resettled to a different location in Roman territory by the Romans in 296 AD. Perhaps someone could write a piece about the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Frisia?--62.195.142.3 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Saxon as an Aryan tribes

Hi I added a new part as Iranian Languages in Etymology I'll add more sources and passage soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekogreeko (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

== Saxon - Iranian Languag==l for any problem with the references , you can try :

the tribes' names In Avesta=

Notice: many sources are in another language (and it was about another language) and i try to give you a link for them:

Avesta: the Farvardin Yashts of the young Avesta

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%E2%80%8C%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%AA

The Avesta contains the names of various tribal groups who lived in proximity to each other. According to Prof. Gherardo Gnoli:’’Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht, Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’.[12] In the hymns of the Avesta, the adjective Tūrya is attached to various enemies of Zoroastrism like Fraŋrasyan (Shahnameh: Afrāsīāb). The word occurs only once in the Gathas, but 20 times in the later parts of the Avesta.

a b G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980 M. Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism. 3V. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. (Handbuch Der Orientalistik/B. Spuler)

Sagxni/Sagxoni or Sagsi or Saka.

Saka is available in Wikipedia

for Sagxi/Sagxoni/Sagsi (سَگزی) you can read :

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/far/hobbies/iran/Shahnameh/shahnameh_ch16.html

you can read the story of Esfandiyār & Rostam or you can see this persian source: http://ganjoor.net/index.php?s=%D8%B3%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C&author=4

the table

The Interpretation of Avesta,by Prof. Freydun Joneydi, 1965 not available online or The Perso-European Languages, Prof. Noxostin, Paris, 1906 but:

http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-f05d06f718054d64ad2ad78b58a0eeac-fa.html

you can use this link : http://fa.glosbe.com/fa/ae/

Iranian Languages

Editor Greekogreeko has introduced the idea that Saxon is Persian for son of a dog. I deleted the content, then reinstated it based on Greekogreeko's statements on my talk page. Since then another user has deleted the content again. I can't find evidence to support Greekogreeko's statements in the sources he provided, but being unable to read Farsi I may be missing something. The links provided do not seem to be about the idea that Saxon is Persian for son of a dog. Based on that and the unlikeliness of a connection between the word Saxon and Iranian languages, I think the section on "Iranian Languages" should stay deleted. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint User:Greekogreeko in that this theory cannot be part of the main article as long as it has not been at least reviewed by philologists specialised in Germanic languages. From what it looks like so far, it seems to be mostly WP:OR and so has no standing on WP. That's where it ends already. OR is a no-go. The theory about the Farsi counterpart to ابن كلب being in any way connected to the name of the Saxones, based on primary school "etymology", does not live up to the most basic standards of linguistic reconstruction. Semantically, it is pretty out there: leaving aside the Juan Juan, where "wriggling worms" is one of the more fanciful translations for the name given to them by the Chinese, I have yet to see a European ethnonym with a pejorative meaning, especially one that is clearly an endonym used by the people itself. Morphologically, it reminded me a little of Heinrich Leo (†1878), who came up with a politically charged but historically and etymologically fairly vapid notion that the Jutes were Getae, the Danes Dacians and the Saxons Saka. None of these equations have anything more to them than superficial -- and rather loose -- phonological similarities. Incidentally, the only one that he didn't inherit from mediaeval scribes, who had been trolling for similar-sounding ancient names long before him, was the one of the Saxons and the Saka, which he made up more or less on the spot. The present scholarly etymology (derived from sahs) is tentative and not a very happy affair, but preferable to what has been presented under "dog"+"son", which is just plain wrong: the Farsi word سگ (sag) is genetically related to German hund, Latin canis and Russian cобака (not sure there though) and was spā in Avestan, not "Dzag". The second part of the "etymology" presented makes even less sense. Sorry, but not on WP please. Trigaranus (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A peaceful invasion of England

From the article:

"Historians are divided about what followed: some argue that the takeover of southern Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxons was peaceful."

This is a breach of WP:UNDUE. Francis Pryor An archaeologist who specialises in British Pre-history has put forward the idea that there was no military invasion but a change in language etc by the locals adopting Saxon customs and culture voluntarily (like much of Europe taking to American styles and brands).

• Pryor, Francis (14 August 2010). "Britain AD - Episode 2: The Invasion That Never Was". BBC. Retrieved August 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ("YouTube copy". Retrieved August 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help));

Here are a couple of sources that dispute this. The first is a review of the book on which the documentary was based:

• Pryor, Francis. 2004. Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons. Great Britain: Harper Collins. 268 pages. 0007181868.
  • Howard M. Wiseman (School of Science, Griffith University, Australia) (May 2007). Celia Chazelle; Deanna Forsman (eds.). A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe (10) http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/reviews.html. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Drawing on his experience of archaeological studies of prehistoric cultural change, Pryor advocates applying the same methodology to this period. That is, he ignores the written records and tries to reconstruct post-Roman history from the archaeological record alone. The results are ludicrous.

The Wiseman review contains a lot more in a similar vein. The second is not a reliable source but it lays out the position and is worth quoting here on the talk page:

• Alex In Leeds (25 March 2012). "Review: Britain AD by Francis Pryor".

Essentially most historians buy into one of three theories on Anglo-Saxon England:

1. Anglo-Saxon invaders overran the entire country like locusts and wiped out the native Britons
2. Anglo-Saxons came over and set themselves up as a ruling elite over the native Britons
3. Anglo-Saxons never really came to England at all, the written sources are all wrong

Theory 1 was the traditional view but there’s little evidence or support for it now, Theory 2 is currently the mostly widely accepted view and fits the written, archaeological and DNA records best and Theory 3 is crackpot.

This book is based on Theory 3.

-- PBS (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

why on earth is the section on the Saxons in Gaul seemingly twice as big as the sections on Saxons in Britain and Germany put together!!!

also (going on maps depicting the borders of Gaul) it would seem a lot of the claimed Saxon presence in Gaul was actually in Belgicia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.234.70 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sassenach - What was it before 1771?

According to the text: [Sassenach] As employed by Scots or Scottish English-speakers today, it is usually used in jest, as a (friendly) term of abuse. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives 1771 as the date of the earliest written use of the word in English.

So was the word Sassenach used by Scots Gaelic speakers prior to 1771? If so did it mean English people, or just Lowland Scots, or both? And if it wasn't used by Gaelic Scots then what did they call Anglo-Saxon lowlanders both Scottish and English? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.119.178 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that date probably refers to the word in English use. OxfordDictionaries.com says that the word appears in English in the "early 18th century" [1]. Dictionary.com gives "1765-75" and "C18" [2]. Too bad they don't name the actual source that they consider preserves the first record of the word. According to some Gaelic scholars, like Wilson McLeod and John MacInnes, the Gaelic Sasannach was originally never used for Scottish Lowlanders, only for the English. Lowlanders were called Goill (singular Gall), as were Anglo-Normans. Originally, the Anglo-Normans in Ireland were called Saxain by the Irish. Search Google Books for "Sasannach Minority Languages and Cultural Diversity in Europe" - the first hit is the book Minority Languages and Cultural Diversity in Europe: Gaelic and Sorbian Perspectives, and on pages 81-82 it notes the use of Sasannach in Gaelic Scotland.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What Brianann said. The use of Sas-/Sax- itself in Goidelic can be traced a bit further back but doesn't actually occur that often (as opposed to gall which is incredibly common). The earliest I can find in a hurry is the dliged lenait saxain for goedelu in the Félire Óengusso with the authors death put at 823. Sas- is just a simplification of the Sax- cluster. But that far back sources are growing thin. A bit reminiscent of the Basques who traditionally just lumped any non-Basque language under Erdara and their speakers (French, Spanish, whoever) as Erdaldunak 'those who have a language other than Basque'. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"satrapa"?

Article currently states "they are governed by several ealdormen (or satrapa)", with "satrapa" linking to Satrap. Does this mean that the Saxons also refered to their ealdormen as "satrapa" (a word presumably etymologically related to satrap)? If so, that should be made clearer. Or is this a case of someone comparing ealdormen to satraps? In which case, i) is this a relevent analogy, ii) who is makign it, and iii) is "satrapa" s typo, or an alternative plural? Iapetus (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the word was only used by Bede to clarify what an ealdorman is. Who knows? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't have an opinion either way as to whether an infobox is needed in this article, but I would just like to comment on the map that was placed in the infobox. [3] I don't think it is a particularly good map. It shows the name of the ocean in French, and unless the reader is already familiar with that part of the world, the geographical bodies around the ocean give no hint of the modern countries there and so are unrecognizable. I'm sure a better map could be found. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Took out the Saxons/Sahson map spiked with the French words for the North Sea

Not the first time I have witnessed sneaky French-language-spiking of English language wiki pages. Often going for soft-targets like endonyms, abbreviations, maps and tables and suchlike nooks and crannys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.142.56 (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with maps using foreign languages on English WP. The other, more detailed map on the page does as well. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If what you swear is trustworthy, it is needlessly so anent this article. I bet you would find reason to fault this Saxon wiki article if it bore maps in the Zulu language or Esperanto. Bloody creepy Francophone deperados, always got to sneak in and put a corrupting French bent to any English language wiki which happens to be on 'Germanic' stuff. The writeup on the so-called 'Saxons in Gaul' is almost bigger than the Saxons in Britain and Germany put together!, Effing nuts. Sad flipping wannabes.