Talk:Saxons

message: 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)
replies: text: Rubbish. How did they get there except via an 'invasion'?  The ancient literature is very clear that Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded England post-Roman evacuation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.1 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some of whom conquered large parts of Great Britain" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaul -- More than I can manage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Paganism

message: "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)
thread_title:  Low German - High German 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Netherlands 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Saxon as an Aryan tribes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Iranian Languages 

message: 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). 
*  ();
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.
**
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:
*
-- PBS (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A peaceful invasion of England 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" . Dictionary.com gives "1765-75" and "C18" . 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  - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sassenach - What was it before 1771? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "satrapa"? 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I added the map and I'm Dutch.. Point is that all the words but "Mer du Nord" are the same anyway. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The map has been restored to the article since. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took out the Saxons/Sahson map spiked with the French words for the North Sea 

message: This is probably a better source, or at least gives context which could be useful. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axones spelling issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saxons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203233532/http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm to http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Haps Tin de Cornbeef tun/enclouse of the cornbooth. Seriously, Cottun in Normandy is haps a false cognate -on being the French diminutive ending. Also don't forget the English lastname: "Cotton" bears the plural ending seen in "oxen" and therefore means cottages. 
It reads: 
"Different Bessin toponyms were identified as typically Saxon, ex : Cottun (Coltun 1035–1037 ; Cola 's "town"). It is the only place name in Normandy that can be interpreted as a -tun one (English -ton; cf. Colton)"
:The sentence you mention seems to be sourced to a French publication that looks appropriate at first sight?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Saxons in Gaul" - what about: Tin de Cornbeef? 

message: Why does it read "The Saxons were...." while for comparison the article about Frisians reads "The Frisians are...."?
While it is true that the Saxons don't have a state of their own (Neither do the Frisians by the way), the Low-Saxon language is still alive. I do not read anything about Saxons becoming extinct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.38.250 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is because the article not about a Saxon language, but about Saxons generally, as a people. And the difference between the two concerning the present tense is that there are still people thinking of themselves as Frisians, whereas I think not many northern Germans think of themselves as Saxons? Indeed a person being called a Saxon today is more likely to be from the Bundesland of that name which has no ethnic or ancestral connotation. Our article on that subject says "The area of the modern state of Saxony should not be confused with Old Saxony, the area inhabited by Saxons".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of past tense 

message: There is no mention that some Saxons also moved to the Balkans in the 13th century (Serbia and Bosnia), working as miners.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.124.128 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source that discusses this, you can WP:CITE that source and add the information yourself.  It would be a useful addition!  --Jayron32 12:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxons on the Balkans 

message: Second paragraph in Saxon article, see hyperlink Baltic when the wrong map appears - the Balkan map. Please know that the Baltic is east of the indicated Saxon territory along the Baltic Sea and not in the Balkans. 
During the Teutonic Knights time(1235-1410) and Hanseatic trading times(1100-1450), Saxons did settle east among existing original tribes like the Wends, Pruzzi (Prussians), Kurs (Courland), all the way to today's Estonia. The majority of German-speaking settlement eastward along the coast, came after the plaque of 1708-10 where half the existing population had died out (due to contact with the Nordic war/Swedish deluge) and the King's envoys invited new settlement promoting religious tolerance.
 
Sachsen/Saxony and Niedersachsen/Lower Saxony are still German provinces that follow the Elbe River. I am aware that a contingent of Saxons from Magdeburg were sent in 1183 via St.Maurice in Valais, Switz. to settle as forest workers in Abonndance, Haute Savoie and along Lake Geneva. Their personal Germanic family names stem from the tribe of Saxons that they come from.
Re the other map in the article that shows Saxons all over Denmark? I thought that the Angles came from there? Hence Anglo-saxon? and Angloland meaning England? Old Saxons went from today's Hamburg to Dresden? 18:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic or Balkan - please don't mix these up 

message: Their earliest weapons and clothing south of the Thames were based on late Roman military fashions, but later immigrants north of the Thames showed a stronger North German influence.
The cited source only supports the second part of the sentence, the one about North German influence, not anything about the Roman nature of 'the earliest weapons and clothing (of the Saxons south of the Thames)'. In addition, it may be noted that the whole sentence seems to be intended to cast doubt upon the standard 'migration hypothesis' about the origin of the insular Saxons - I can't think of any other reason to place such a detail in the lede at all - whereas the cited source explicitly defends that very hypothesis. In general, Andrew Lancaster's whole series of edits, from which this originates, seem to be intended to minimise or deny any connection between the insular Saxons and the continental Saxons, as well as between insular Germanic speakers/culture and continental Germanic speakers/culture in general (unless, I suppose, the connection should be that the Germanic languages originated in London and spread from there to the barbarous continent). I don't know whether this now-fashionable tendency is more connected to Germanophobia, Romanophilia (what with the constant emphasis on the Britons' overhyped 'Romanisation' rather than their Celtic vernacular) or mere English essentialism ('we have always been in England and been just as Romance-influenced as we are now').--77.85.55.14 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote from Halsall to help me understand where you think I am wrong? Also note that you have removed and changed sourced material, and not everything was from Halsall. Have you read Springer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from lede 

message: The opening map shows the Jutes in Kent. Didn't they also settle the Isle of Wight? 
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wihtwara
for example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.25.221 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map