English are not Britons

[Menydh]

When Germany ruled Britain

Nature
July 19, 2006

Modelling study shows how Anglo-Saxon élite outbred native Brits.


They may not always have enjoyed the most cordial of relations, but English and German people have more in common than they might think. An analysis of the genetic make-up of today's British population suggests that almost all English people are descended from Saxon invaders who became masters of a two-tier society that battered indigenous Brits into submission.

The analysis lends weight to the theory that the Anglo-Saxon invaders, although relatively few in number, managed to take over almost the entire country by setting up a system of social segregation similar to apartheid in South Africa, in which the established locals were made second-class citizens.

The idea that modern English are of German descent is not new. Previous genetic studies have suggested that more than 50% of English Y chromosomes (the chromosome passed on unchanged from father to son) are all but identical to those of German and Danish natives.

But there has been a problem in explaining how the Anglo-Saxons managed to breed so successfully in Britain in the 300 years or so after their invasion in the fifth century AD. Simple mathematical analyses suggest that this level of breeding would have required an invading party more than half-a-million strong to make an impression on the estimated two million Britons living on the island at the time. Archaeologists argued that there is no evidence of such a mass influx of foreigners.

Easy advantage

This paradox disappears, however, if you consider a society in which the invaders muscled their way to the top of society, where they could breed more successfully, say the British researchers behind the new study. According to their computer model, somewhere between 10,000 and 200,000 invaders would have been needed to make their mark on the population, says Mark Thomas of University College London, who led the study.

The Anglo-Saxons may have forced indigenous Britons into servitude, while enjoying superior wealth, health and breeding potential, Thomas and his colleagues suggest in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.

If the invading men were 1.8 times more likely than the locals to reproduce successfully, the researchers note, it would take only five generations, or 175 years, for the Germanic Y chromosome to exceed 50% prevalence in the population as a whole.

The study examined only the spread of the male lineage: sons fathered by Saxon men but born to native British women would therefore count as a spread of the Germanic line. "But I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the maternal line you would see the same pattern," says Thomas, although he thinks it may not be quite so starkly defined.

Lofty status

An apartheid-like system is the explanation that fits best with sociological evidence, Thomas argues. Historical records of the law of the time, for example, suggest that the fines payable to the family of a murdered Anglo-Saxon were far higher than those for a dead Briton. "There could conceivably have been wholesale slaughter or wholesale rape, but those explanations are the stuff of films really," he says.

Obvious signs of the invasion persist today. "Look at the language we speak — it's Germanic. We are ostensibly German," Thomas says.

How did the German marauders manage to attain such a lofty status, given that they were in the minority? "They were invaders; they were trained," Thomas says. "And the British had been hammered by the Romans for years."

There are, however, corners of Britain that seem to have remained resolutely British. Thomas and his colleagues point out that, although most English and German Y chromosomes bear a strong similarity, both are markedly different from those of Welsh people today. "The differences still persist," says Thomas. "Even if not enshrined into law, people from different groups often tend not to interbreed."


[source]

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But there has been a problem in explaining how the Anglo-Saxons managed to breed so successfully in Britain in the 300 years or so after their invasion in the fifth century AD. Simple mathematical analyses suggest that this level of breeding would have required an invading party more than half-a-million strong to make an impression on the estimated two million Britons living on the island at the time. Archaeologists argued that there is no evidence of such a mass influx of foreigners.

They pass by on tip-toes in front of what evidence and logics tells of the reality behind the Anglo-Saxon invasion: mass murders and rape.

There are, however, corners of Britain that seem to have remained resolutely British. Thomas and his colleagues point out that, although most English and German Y chromosomes bear a strong similarity, both are markedly different from those of Welsh people today. "The differences still persist," says Thomas. "Even if not enshrined into law, people from different groups often tend not to interbreed."

For any ethnic preservationist this is a reason more than enough to call for the total independence of Cornwall and Wales.

In today's multicultural society the English represent a threat to Briton ethnic preservation of a magnitude equal to (if not bigger than) non European immigrants.

[Señor Malo]

On the other side, I never heard a briton (from french Britany) willing to be Englisc

[Batzec]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

On the other side, I never heard a briton (from french Britany) willing to be Englisc

In fact I heard some Welshmen saying to be very proud of having no English drop of blood in their veins.

On the other hand Saxon warriors were more valuable than Briton ones; although we must remind here Saxons expected Romans to evacuate Britannia before invasion. Classical tactics would probably defeat invaders, like Saxons proved against their race brothers, vikings, some hundred years later.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Batzec

On the other hand Saxon warriors were more valuable than Briton ones; although we must remind here Saxons expected Romans to evacuate Britannia before invasion. Classical tactics would probably defeat invaders, like Saxons proved against their race brothers, vikings, some hundred years later.

Rome had left Britannia without protection, moving their legions to other parts of the Empire. Hispania too had been left without protection, which is why the Goths were sent in as an army federated to Rome, to fight the tribes of the Vandals.

In spite of that, the Britano-Romans did manage to hold the Saxons for a time and even inflicted some defeats on them.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Batzec

Classical tactics would probably defeat invaders, like Saxons proved against their race brothers, vikings, some hundred years later.

The Vikings held huge territories of England (The Danelaw) but their attempts to take England as a whole were defeated by the Saxon King Harold. Of course, he then had to march south immediately to fight off another invasion - this time against the Normans under William. This battle the Saxons lost at Hasting in 1066 AD. The irony being that the Normans themselves were simply Vikings who had settled in Northern France from territory ceded to them by the Frankish king Rollo.

So in a way, the Vikings did succeed in conquering Saxon England. They merely done it under the guise of Normans rather than Norsemen.

If you want true resistance, one must look to the Gaelic tribes........

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Batzec

On the other hand Saxon warriors were more valuable than Briton ones; although we must remind here Saxons expected Romans to evacuate Britannia before invasion.

Well just a mater of handling one enemy at time.

It is usually said that saxon warriors did not have cavalry.
Is it true?

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The irony being that the Normans themselves were simply Vikings who had settled in Northern France from territory ceded to them by the Frankish king Rollo.

Hmm... IMHO, Normans were no way pure Vikings at that time (more than a century after Rollon was given Normandy), they had had already the opportunity to mix with the locals who were in a majority in Normandy, Guillaume (William) being an exemple. He himself was not of "pure" aristocratic breed, his mother being most likely a woman from the common people (her father was a tanner, certainly of pre-Viking native Normans stock) while he descended from Rollon by his father. Now that Guillaume and his men had a Viking ancestry, that's for sure, but pure I doubt it (Vikings came without women, they mixed with native women and after a few gnerations native blood is predominent).

[Gil]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

Well just a mater of handling one enemy at time.

It is usually said that saxon warriors did not have cavalry.
Is it true?

They had light cavalry but not the feudalistic "knights" and institutions that the Normans had whose military emphasis was on cavalry shock attack.

I do have to comment that most people correlate Normans = Civilized Vikings and that is far from truth: Normans originated from Frankish and Danish (viking) origin, producing what we call "the Norman people" which were, both in character and in physical look, different from both parts. Even in "The Races of Britain" there is this reference about the duality of the Norman "looks":

Originally Posted by John Beddoe

One prevails to the west of the Seine, and is that described by W. Edwards as Kymric, with little modification : the men are tall, long-faced, aquiline-nosed and usually darkish hair.The other is more abundant about Caen, Bayeux, and Coutances, where the men are very generally fair, and resemble the people of the North of England.

In a more personal note, the Normans spread not only to Britain but also to Ireland, Iberia and Southern Europe (namely Sicily and Apulia) and I believe that the so called "dark britons" or "dark irish" might be of either pre-roman celtic origin (since there were blonde, red headed and dark haired celts) or of posterior Norman admixture (which were both stocky or slender, blonde or dark haired). I would even guess that the modern Aquitanians and, generally speaking, most people of the Western coast of France, belong to this type, be it from a celtic, frankish or norman extraction.

[Youenn]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

On the other side, I never heard a briton (from french Britany) willing to be Englisc

How that ?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Youenn

How that ?

Easy. Why accept French/Frankish ethnic anihilation through Jacobinism, but accept English/Anglo-Saxon ethnic anihilation through the sword?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

Hmm... IMHO, Normans were no way pure Vikings at that time (more than a century after Rollon was given Normandy), they had had already the opportunity to mix with the locals who were in a majority in Normandy, Guillaume (William) being an exemple. He himself was not of "pure" aristocratic breed, his mother being most likely a woman from the common people (her father was a tanner, certainly of pre-Viking native Normans stock) while he descended from Rollon by his father. Now that Guillaume and his men had a Viking ancestry, that's for sure, but pure I doubt it (Vikings came without women, they mixed with native women and after a few gnerations native blood is predominent).

True. I believe that there was a DNA research study which showed levels of Viking/Scandinavian DNA on Norman population much lower than expected.

The research, if I recall correctly, showed higher levels of DNA input on Bretons (without this meaning a highly significant Viking/Nordo-Germanic element in the population) than on Normans.

Vikings were seafarers engaged both in piracy and trade. From what I've been told by one Scandinavian, they would settle gladly among any population providing they were welcomed. Like you have pointed out, they usually set sails without women onboard. The rest is easy to imagine..

[Youenn]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Easy. Why accept French/Frankish ethnic anihilation through Jacobinism...

... and through the sword like english, remember St Aubin des Cormiers.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

but accept English/Anglo-Saxon ethnic anihilation through the sword?

I never said I agreed with that.
If the Anglo-Saxon could go out of Great Britain that's be a great satisfaction, but seeing how things go, it's out very unlikely, the Britons are divided, the Gaelics too and aprt from folklore driven gatherings there's no interceltic kinship... looking at the Germanic forums like Skadi we are petty.
Moreover with the loss of culture in Britanny and the rising number of foreigners setting in (30-40 % ?) you can guess the Englishmen are the least annoying compared to Parisian leaders and local traitors. Unfortunately we're not back in Alain Fergent's time gone to Hastings to defeat the Anglo-Saxon and take back the looted land...

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Youenn

Unfortunately we're not back in Alain Fergent's time gone to Hastings to defeat the Anglo-Saxon and take back the looted land...

One can dream....