Was there a difference between Anglo-Saxons and vikings?

Or Bede.

Anglo-Saxons were more civilized. The Danes were barbarians.

They both look equal to me

How?

They were both simple germanic tribals

Anglo-Saxons say sċyrte, vikings say skyrta
Anglo-Saxons say schateren, vikings say krasa
Anglo-Saxons say ċiriċe, vikings say kirkja
Anglo-Saxons say dīċ, vikings say díki

anglo-saxons and vikings are both filthy germanic barbarians.

The huns never reached northern germany and jutland. They conquered britannia by force.

The Anglo-Saxons were smarter because they could read, write and build with stone.

So the Britons and Gaels who taught them how were smarter?

hurstwic.org/history/articles/literature/text/literature.htm

This link has some food for thought re literacy among "vikings" (ie viking age scandinavians). While it's by no mean a definitive academic paper on the subject, I think you can make a decent argument that the viking age Scandinavians were far from an illiterate people.

>they forget to mention the jutes every time

...

danes(scandinavians) could read runes, write runes and build stone fortifications.

Time Frame. If you met a ninth century Norwegian and a fifth century saxon, you'd have to know what their languages sounded like to tell them apart.

They were both migratory Germanic tribes that moved about in warbands, worshipped Pagan Gods when initially encountered and had a penchant for raiding from the sea.

Magical incantations carved into weaponry and memorial stones are not literature; there was no Scandinavian equivalent to the English illuminated manuscript tradition.

I am curious about the stone buildings you mentioned though, where can I learn more about them?

Yes and the Romans who taught the Celts were smarter than that.

>What are the Sagas
retard

Things written long after the Viking Age had ended with Scandinavia already Christianized, blockhead.

written =/= composed

Anglo Saxons were German, vikings were Scandinavians

>anglo saxons
>invade britain
Pick one

Even though Anglo-Saxons come from modern jutland, back then jutland was inhabited by th ancestors of modern Germans, not modern Scandinavians
Scandinavians pushed out the Germans living there and made Denmark, a new nation inhabited by Scandinavians instead of Germans
Saxons now live in central Germany instead of northern Germany where they historically lived

And the Greeks who taught the Romans were smarter?

Yes and the leap from oral composition to written literature was one that the Anglo-Saxons made hundreds of years before the Scandinavians.

Yes and the Egyptians who taught the Greeks were smarter than that.

Germans came from the Alps

The people from Jutland were closer to Frisians and Dutch

Dutch people are similar genetically to Northern Germans
Southern Germans like Bavarians are Alpine, but Northern Germans have always lived in northern Europe
Saxons were northern Germans, and today exist in central Germany

So the aincient chaos Gods who blessed the Egyptians with knowledge are the wisest beings in all history?

I have done some reading that the migration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes may have been caused by war in northern Europe, and it's a hypothesis that makes sense.

...

>took over england three times
>unsuccessful

Genetically similar but culturally fairly different, as they were separated by hundreds of years of history and divergent development.

I was going to say, haven't they found runic labels and signs in norse market areas, implying there are enough literate people for a sign to be worthwhile.

they were raiding England for a long time during the Roman empire suggesting their own volition was a large part of it

>The Danes never were successful in their attempted conquest
Cnut was pretty successful, he managed to unify England under his rule, something none of his Anglo-Saxon contemporaries could manage. He ruled England for 19 years, bringing peace and prosperity. Then he died young. And all his children died very soon after, leaving England no rightful king and so it fell back into squabbling between the Anglo-Saxon kings, only for them to be conquered by yet another foreigner a short while later.

When and how do you define Viking

There are different ethic groups of Germans. Hence why there is a divide to this day between south germans and north germans.

They never established a permanent kingdom. By the time of the Norman conquest in 1066 the Anglo-Saxons had retaken England.

Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians are Ingvaeonic(North Sea Germanic)

the Germans are Irminonic.

How long does a kingdom have to last to be permanent?

Only for monks and a tiny, learnt fraction of the population. The general move from oral to written culture happened about the same time as the Norse started writing down the sagas. And as the article linked further up shows, laymen Norse were often literate, in contrast to the lower class anglos

Where did the ruling Norman class come from now again? Where did the name "Norman" come from?

>Saxons now live in central Germany instead of northern Germany where they historically lived
Nope.avi
The Saxons pushed south from southern Jutland and conquered the Langobards, Angrivarians and other tribes of the area. The divided their realm into Nortalbingia (their homeland north of the Elbe), Westphalia, Angria and Eastphalia. As a whole, this land was known as Saxony, pic related. The duke of Saxony later also came to rule the Margravate of Meissen in modern-day Saxony in 1423. Since Old Saxony was long divided into a handful of different political bodies, the name shifted onto the new land. The inhabitants of Upper Saxonia are no descendants of the Old Saxons.

Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians spoke an Ingvaeonic language.
The history of German as a language is more complicated than that. It is mostly a compromise of different Irmionic dialects, but its standard pronunciation is based on Eastphalian Low German, which is Ingvaeonic. Some people in the northern third of Germany still speak Low German.

France.

>Where did the name "Norman" come from?
The French language.

So the people of today who are most closely related to the anglo saxon conquerers of England back in 400 are the peoples inhabiting the indigo area of your map?

WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER

Angles and Saxons came from the areas in the map posted here: Modern-day Sleswick roughly corresponds to the homeland of the Angles. There are even a few place names related to them (Angeln peninsula). Modern-day Holstein corresponds to the homeland of the Saxons or Nordalbingia (see pic related, the area north of the "Albia" river).
So we can assume that the inhabitants of those two areas are very closely related to the conquerors of England back in ~400.
Like I said, the Saxons went on to conquer the lands south of the Elbe/Albia river during the Great Migration, while the invasion of Britain was still going on. Angles and Saxons mixed with Brittons (and Romans) in Britain, and Saxons mixed with Irminonic and Istvaeonic Germanics (who already had Celtic and possibly Roman admixture) on the continent.

Yes.

>be danish
>mom and dad are from slesvig
>mom is also partially faroese
>part of dad's family left hungary around 800 years ago
>tfw you wuz magyars, vikangs and now also angles and shiet

It's cool that you know all this stuff about your ancestry. All currently living Europeans probably have some genetic admixture from all the major groups. I live in the area of that map and I have ancestry from southern Angria, western Eastphalia, from Königsberg/Kaliningrad and (possibly) from Finland.

That's some unique history of your family, i wish I knew as much about my family ancestry.

Sounds like fighting Russians is in your blood.

I think I might be very distantly related to a certain penis obsessed marxist philosopher on account of my middlename I got from my dad sound a lot like a Germanized version of his, and AFAIK, everyone named that traces it from the same place in Hungary, which honestly might now be in Slovenia.

Most of it is really just because one guy in my dad's family a generation or two ago went full muh heritage, but yeah, it's pretty cool shit, and it helps me explain why literally everyone asks me if I'm Turkish or Albanian or some shit, which again, because of my Faroese grandma, might just as well be some Barbary pirate enrichment.

At least they don't think I'm a Chinese girl anymore.

Anglo saxons weren't renowned as greatsailors

Weird that the non Danish look could last hundred of years, you sure you haven't recent non Nordic ancestry ?

>Sounds like fighting Russians is in your blood.
I dunno. My great great grandfather was born in Finland, albeit to a German father and presumably a German mother. My gramps left his right arm in the Caucasus mountains in WWII and his wife fled from East Prussia before the Russians took over. My great grandfather from the maternal side helped build a Finnish airport during WWII. But nowadays I have nothing against Russians and I'm good friends with a Russian dude from Kazakhstan.

What is your middle name?

So both modern English and modern Germans are a mix of Saxon and Celtic?
That's ironic because English and Germans think they are so different when genetically they have a similar admixture

Sisseck

Also
>My gramps left his right arm in the Caucasus mountains in WWII
Great gramps walked from the Ural mountains after being released from the POW work camp after WW1 that he had been sent to after his unit being overrun by Cossacks, walked barefoot all the way to Poland before killing a guy in a fight and taking his boots, his hometown being Danish again when he arrived some time in the 1920s after having been German since the Danish loss in 1864.

Apart from my grandma from the Faroese Islands, they're pretty locally centered around south Jutland for at least the past 200 years, but like I said, might be Barbary raid or remains of the French fleet hanging out with the Faroese, lots of thick dark hair in my grandma's family.

Yeah, but it's more complicated than that. Celts most likely originated with the Hallstatt culture, starting out in modern-day Austria. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture
They spread out to all of Western Europe, as well as to Thracia, Turkey and Central Germany.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#/media/File:Celtic_expansion_in_Europe.png
By the time of Roman conquest, the Celts in Germania had been replaced by Germanic tribes. If by assimilation, conquest or displacement, I do not know. Here is where Germanics got their Celtic admixture, if any. Germanics split into three major groups: North, West and East. The West again split into Irminones (East and South Germans), Istvaeones (Dutch and West Germans) and Ingvaeones (Frisians, Angles, Saxons; thus English and Low Germans of today).
The Celts conquered and mixed with whoever lived on the British Isles before them. We do not know those peoples' identity. But they certainly had a great influence on Insular Celtic genes and culture. Anglo-Saxons mixed with those Pre-Celtic and Celtic mongrels to form modern-day Britons, but only to a limited extent. A study from Oxford University found out that the islands remained divided between Celtic and Germanic heritages up until the industrial revolution.
telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/britons-still-live-in-anglo-saxon-tribal-kingdoms-oxford-univers/

Your great gramps sounds like a badass. Congratulations for him making it that far and continuing the family.
I know close to nothing about what happened with my ancestors in WWI.

You should do a genetic test

Your only evidence for that is the "muh saxon shore forts" and its been proven they weren't for defending against them.

The evidence suggests that the saxons migrated peacefully and were probably invided by the Romans to defend against Irish and Scotti raiders. The Anglo-Saxon cultural shift was gradual probably because Britain was never Latinized to the same extent Gaul was.

Anglo-Saxons is a cultural/racial/language group.

Viking is a description of profession, or an action, not a race or nationality.

You're welcome.

which one says tomay'to and who says tomato?

societywise, almost nothing

culturewise, religion is the only real difference, and that is only post-conversion angles

and of course Anglo-Saxons are West Germanic while Norse are North Germanic, but back then the differences were less pronounced.

The reason there is so much confusion; there was a bunch of invading steppe peoples mixed into their cultures.

cont-

Before the Steppe peoples arrived in Scandinavia, the Scandinavians were all black haired, black eyed savages.

Behold the Hairyan master race

Now all you vikingboos in this thread need to sit down and listen up because you're saying a lot of things that just aren't factual. First off Anglo-Saxons and vikings were not the same at all. The Anglo-Saxons became Christian early on and were very serious about the church unlike the vikings who were still praying to trees during this time. The Anglo-Saxons were a lot smarter than the vikings too because they had monks who could write books and king Alfred could even read Latin which was a really big deal back in those days. The vikings didn't care about books and would sometimes break off the gold book bindings that had jewels in them and wear them as a necklace because that's all they thought it was good for. Unlike the vikings the Anglo-Saxons also had friends in mainland Europe and a lot of kings wanted to have English tutors who were famous for being wise. Even some viking kings sent their sons to learn in England. When it came to fighting the vikings were raiders who liked to attack churches because they had lots of loot with no one guarding it but the Anglo-Saxons were more organized and would form fyrds to fight off the viking attacks. There a lot of other things that made them different too but this is just a starting point for you to go out and do your own research but at the very least you can see that the Anglo-Saxons and vikings had very different cultures.

The only valid answer. "Viking" isn't a culture, its a job.

Anglo-Saxons also love to call King Arthur one of their Mythical Heroes, don't take anything they say about that time period seriously.

saxons say Þōemāþas.
vikings say ÞómáðiR

Blonde hair has been in scandinavia and northern europe for about 11000 years.

...

U wot m8?

lel u shure showed him

saxons
>kite shields
>vikings
>round shields

>significantly more developed
>live in roman homes and mudhuts
>DEVELOPEd

>danes were barbarians
#Oh such a subtle shitpost

>Romanized celts invite the Angles over as mercenaries in their wars against the Picts.
>Romanized Celts invite the Saxons over as mercenaries in their wars against the Saxons.
>Norse were not invited. They just started raiding Anglo-Saxon settlements and monasteries.

>>Norse were not invited
That's the real reason as to why they started raiding shit.

Obviously the Eternal Anglo isn't going to fall for the same mistakes that allowed him to Eternally Anglo the Romanized Celts twice.

Obviously.

source?
I know the first account of the Saxons is mercenaries employed by the Romans to kill some border Germans. but know nought besides that

Sure but the "Anlgo" part was from a part of North Germany which has been Danish for most of the time there has been a Denmark to be part of.

BOTH ARE FUCKING SCUM. TRUE BRITONS LIKE THE WELSH SHOULD CONQUER ENGLAND WITH THEIR LONGBOWS.

>The French language.

Literally to this day, a person from Norway, in all the Scandinavian languages, is called some variation of "nordmand" (in Danish, the d's are silent as well) You don't think the French came up with that, do you?

Saxons used roundshields.
except the late anglo-danish housecarls during the year 1066.