What were relations between the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes like once they arrived in the British isles? Were they buds or were they instantly fighting over territory? Also, did they genocide the Celts? Or did the Celts just fuck off to the west?
>>18614956>Also, did they genocide the Celts? Or did the Celts just fuck off to the west?Neither. They fucked the Celts.
Some britons did flee South
Why did the JEWts never conquer a lot of land?
>>18615009Wait, sarf vs norf FC has always just been Angles vs Saxons?
>>18615018CAM ON ANGLIA!!! CONQUER SAM FACKIN LAND!!
>>18615043lel
>>18614956They did not genocide the celts, average modern British DNA is 10-40% Anglo-Saxon and 90-60% Celt.Normans left no genetic trace on the bulk population.Geneticists insist there is no genetic stratification, that is, there is no modern indication of Anglo-Saxon or Norman DNA rising as you go higher in class status. Who knows if that's true.
>>18615009They mainly stayed back in jutland
>>18615080>90-60% CeltI think that’s a little exaggerated. You’re also leaving out Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian DNA (which I know were low).
>>18614956>Also, did they genocide the CeltsConsider the House of Wessex appear to be Celts who assimilated, the answer is no.There's also graves of 100% Britons who seem to have converted to Germanic paganism.
>>18615147I don't know man, I think it's sort of the cold splash of truth geneticists are throwing at us right now. Our population has undergone incredible degeneration.One of the remarkable things about England was that for centuries the aristocracy always had too many kids for the amount of land and titles and prestige positions available to them. They'd be forced to descend into the middle class. So you essentially had an amazingly eugenic effect where the noble warrior DNA was trickling down into the masses.At some point this stopped and began to reverse. the aristocrats began to practice sexual continence and have 2-3 kids at most, many of them got wiped out in wars or emigrated, and the Celtic masses just continued having 10 kids per family.No offense to Celts.
>>18615080>>18615228Why are you ethnoLARPing and using the term """celt""" to refer to people who were not genetically """celtic"""?
>>18615234Do you just want me to call them Britons or Brythonnic? Don't they call themselves Celt? I'm talking about the pre-Germanic Bell Beaker population of Britain that arrived in the 3rd millenium and remained stable all the way to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The people most represented in Wales and Cornwall. Do you want to just call them Bell Beakers?
>>18614956>that little Jutish Ceuta in Belgium.
>>18615228>remarkable things about England was that for centuries the aristocracyBro there's no fucking way you think the English Upper Class ever had "superior genetics" hahahaha holy fucking shit.The average Australian is a descendant of criminal bums and cockney street urchins and the average Aussie looks a million bucks more beautiful and healthy than any Lord De La Pompouscunt in the House of Lords.
>>18615228That 'some point' was the Industrial Revolution. Thid brought about a massive (unparalleled among peer nations) expansion in population quantity, which obviously came at the expense of quality.
>>18615018Unironically yes. It's also just weird how the Saxon Kingdom ended up unifying the land but it was called Angleland.
>>18615228My schizo theory as to why people act like they are entitled to things above their station today is because pieces of the aristocratic/elite/noble soul has been scattered across most people after centuries of gradual marrying down. It’s statistically impossible to be predominantly British and not also a descendant of Edward III. Every US president except for van Buren can have their ancestry provably traced to King John. Etc. Why should I have a say in the running of the country? Well, it’s in my blood and ancestral memory to want that, at least partially. The problem is that this aristocratic/elite/noble soul is too diluted to create people that strive for any sort of noble ideals. Their souls seek power but can’t wield it well.
>>18615425The Norman descended Englishmen wanted to be separate from France but they didn’t want to name the kingdom after the guys they conquered. It’d be like if instead of the U.S of America, the settlers named it HeyaHoyaville.
>>18615954The name came from the French Angleterre, they just shortened it. It was previously called Britannia and had druids
>be angle>migrate west>name your new kingdom east angliawhat were they thinking?
Threadly reminder that the Viking age was a part of the migration period. Tribes had been migrating out of Scandinavia for centuries already.
>>18614968Britons were in armorica before the fall of the roman empire, the two sides of the channel were pretty connected and the dialects were even similar
>>18615425Mercia was the big dog before wessex, and they were anglic. Makes sense to clam that heritage
>>18615425There was already a relevant Saxony in Germany (Charlemagne conquered them) while the Angles were never as numerous or just all left for England
>>18616207its curious that despite the angles being a relatively small portion of the anglo saxons, they chose to run with that name which evolved into english. i can only assume that they wanted to distance themselves from the saxons, especially as they gained a reputation as pagan fanatics and rebels against christendom
>>18615244They never once called themselves "celts"You are ethnoLARPing
>>18616028They had so many Angleish kingdoms in Britannia, so the one furthest east was called east Anglia. All the other ones changed their names.
>>18615257Australians look exactly like english people. The rich australians look like the rich brits and the poor australians look like the poor brits
>>18616357Welsh, Irish, and some Scottish people, the people who most closely descend from the original folk who arrived during the Bell Beaker invasion, absolutely do call themselves Celtic.You are being a bad faith faggot purposefully ignoring obvious reality.Bell Beaker -> Bell Beaker + Urnfield -> Pre-Roman Britons/Brythonic "Celtic" people -> Modern Welsh Irish and Scottish who call themselves Celtic all the time.Please tell me what you think is wrong with that chronology specifically.
I've never before seen the way some people on this board will just stubbornly, autistically cling to the same stupid arguments.They try to nitpick something as simple as calling pre-Roman British DNA "Celtic" because those people assimilated into Celtic culture, speak the modern Celtic languages, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, and Gaelic, and call themselves Celtic.
>>18616357Brythonics were between 40-60% hallstatt, if they're not celtic then anglo-saxons aren't germanic
>>18615018Angles looks Midul to me. Norf seems like barren land with barely any people
>>18617254They did not call themselves """celts""" until the 19th century.>>18617265>columbians are spaniards despite being mostly indio genetically because they speak a spanish language>haitians are french despite being mostly african genetically because they speak a french languageThis is your mind on celtoLARPingAnd there's the fact that the only nation that speaks a "celtic" language on a significant basis is wales. The scots and irish do not. And don't even get started with """cornish""" a language revived 20 years ago that has about 100 fluent speakers.So you have a bunch of people who aren't genetically celtic, who don't speak a celtic language whom you consider celtic because at one point their ancestors might have spoken a celtic language.Does this mean we should start calling them Yamnayans because at one point their ancestors spoke yamnaya? >>18618117Only in the south of england
>>18614956>Were they budsYes, before Jewish subversion
>>18618361This all could have been avoided if I had bothered to add the word Insular to my post. funny.Yamnaya never once called themselves Yamnaya, there was never a language called Yamnaya, and we only started calling them Yammaya like 40 years ago. Seems like your criteria for endonyms failed pretty hard there.If Cornish, Scottish Gaelic and Irish don't count as Celtic languages because they only have 2 million speakers, I wonder what we should consider Celtiberian, Gaulish, and Noric?In my very first post I made it clear that I understand the Insular Celts are Bell Beaker descendants and not Urnfield, but you're just stubbornly autistic insisting on things everyone already knows and still getting them wrong.
>>18614956>Were they buds or were they instantly fighting over territory?Instantly fighting over territory but it wasn't based on Angles vs. Saxons vs. Jutes, it was just my war band (yay us!) vs. your war band (Die!). Also there were Frisians and Franks too mixed in.
>>18619001>Yamnaya never once called themselves Yamnaya, there was never a language called Yamnaya, and we only started calling them Yammaya like 40 years ago. Seems like your criteria for endonyms failed pretty hard there.The "celts" in britain never once called themselves celts. Their language was not called celtic until the 18th and 19th centuries>If Cornish, Scottish Gaelic and Irish don't count as Celtic languages because they only have 2 million speakers, I wonder what we should consider Celtiberian, Gaulish, and Noric?I never said they were not Celtic languages you retard. They are not widely spoken. Polish is more widely spoken in ireland then irish is.>In my very first post I made it clear that I understand the Insular Celts are Bell Beaker descendants and not Urnfield, but you're just stubbornly autistic insisting on things everyone already knows and still getting them wrong.They are not celts in any way. The romans did not call them celts. Historically illiterate spastic
What about Gaels. Is that even a valid category
>>18619063>They are not widely spokenSo what? You're just cobbling together random facts about Insular Celtic history without making it clear what you're even saying, except that you're angry that the Insular Celts are called Celts.It's just a name. Get over it. "Tocharian" is a far worse misnomer than Celtic, you just don't care about that because you don't have a hateboner for Tocharians.
The Tocharians never called themselves Tocharian, the people the Greeks called Tocharians were an unrelated Bactrian group, Tocharian is not spoken widely today, Polish is spoken more widely than Tocharian, We only started calling it Tocharian in 1907.Isn't that crazy? I hope you enjoyed that little history of an exonym.
