England was ruled by Saxons, why it wasn't named Saxland?
Dec 15, 2022 20:39:16 GMT
theravenking and paulslaugh like this
Post by dividavi on Dec 15, 2022 20:39:16 GMT
I got this from Quora - www.quora.com/What-language-was-spoken-in-England-BEFORE-and-after-Norman-Conquest-1066
Profile photo for James Calbraith
If "England" was ruled by Saxons, why it wasn't named "Saxland"?
Originally Answered: If "England" was ruled by Saxons, why it wasn't named "Seaxland"?
This is a surprisingly complex question. It’s not enough to say “England was inhabited by Angles and Saxons” - the real question is why a Saxon dynasty took the Anglian title, rather than enforce their own on the Anglian lands.
The first true king of what was to become the Kingdom of England was Alfred the Great - but he styled himself as Rex Angulsaxonum, the King of the Anglo-Saxons (back in those days, you called yourself the king of a people, rather than king of a country). It was his grandson, Athelstan, who called himself Rex Anglorum, the King of the English. Why, if both were originally Saxons, rulers of Wessex and other Saxon lands?
The thing to remember is that, in the time just before Alfred, Wessex was far from being the most powerful Anglo-Saxon kingdom. That title belonged, for at least two centuries, to Mercians and Northumbrians - the kingdoms of the Angles. By the time of Alfred, Mercia and Northumbria were ravaged, and largely conquered, by the Danes. Wessex was the last one standing, but it needed an alliance with the Angles of Mercia to survive and fight back.
The contemporaries on both sides knew well what the situation was: for the alliance to thrive, the traditional supremacy of the Angles had to be recognized, in some way, even if it was the Saxon kings who led the victory against the Danes. For Alfred and Edward, a joint title “king of Anglo-Saxons” was enough, while the war was hanging in the balance and their territory encompassed only Wessex and parts of Mercia; but Athelstan, having reconquered all of Northumbria, had to take the title of the Anglian kings, otherwise the Saxons would appear as just another occupying force on the Anglian lands in the north, not much better than the Danes.
Profile photo for James Calbraith
If "England" was ruled by Saxons, why it wasn't named "Saxland"?
Originally Answered: If "England" was ruled by Saxons, why it wasn't named "Seaxland"?
This is a surprisingly complex question. It’s not enough to say “England was inhabited by Angles and Saxons” - the real question is why a Saxon dynasty took the Anglian title, rather than enforce their own on the Anglian lands.
The first true king of what was to become the Kingdom of England was Alfred the Great - but he styled himself as Rex Angulsaxonum, the King of the Anglo-Saxons (back in those days, you called yourself the king of a people, rather than king of a country). It was his grandson, Athelstan, who called himself Rex Anglorum, the King of the English. Why, if both were originally Saxons, rulers of Wessex and other Saxon lands?
The thing to remember is that, in the time just before Alfred, Wessex was far from being the most powerful Anglo-Saxon kingdom. That title belonged, for at least two centuries, to Mercians and Northumbrians - the kingdoms of the Angles. By the time of Alfred, Mercia and Northumbria were ravaged, and largely conquered, by the Danes. Wessex was the last one standing, but it needed an alliance with the Angles of Mercia to survive and fight back.
The contemporaries on both sides knew well what the situation was: for the alliance to thrive, the traditional supremacy of the Angles had to be recognized, in some way, even if it was the Saxon kings who led the victory against the Danes. For Alfred and Edward, a joint title “king of Anglo-Saxons” was enough, while the war was hanging in the balance and their territory encompassed only Wessex and parts of Mercia; but Athelstan, having reconquered all of Northumbria, had to take the title of the Anglian kings, otherwise the Saxons would appear as just another occupying force on the Anglian lands in the north, not much better than the Danes.
