How Countries in the British Isles Got Their Names

[Grace O'Malley]

This was very informative.

[Creoda]

Why England is named after the Angles and not the Saxons is still a bit mysterious, I listened to something recently that went some way to explaining but I've forgotten what it was unfortunately. The continental Angles were pretty small and obscure, and the Jutes were unknown. That we talk of the Jutes with the other two groups in magnitude is often considered an arbitrary choice of Bede. The Saxons were the largest of the tribes on the continent, the first into Britain (hence the Insular Celts forever calling the English Saxons), and the Kindom of England was united by and under West Saxons. The idea that it was because there already was a 'Saxonland' sounds a little unconvincing and like retrospective logic, but maybe.

The fact that the Scots took the name of the Irish is well-known but still tickling. With regards to Eire, my birth certificate lists my father's birthplace as Eire, not Ireland. That held up a security clearance for me once because they didn't know wtf Eire was. I suppose it ceased to be officially designated as Eire in 1949 after it left the Commonwealth.

The chance of Wales being renamed Cum-ree in English is pretty low.

[Creoda]

From reading up on it again, the naming of England and the English after the Angles seems to largely be a shortening for simplicity, and likely for West Saxons to assert the political legitimacy of their rule over the Mercians and Northumbrians (Angles). The title of rex Angul-Saxonum (King of the Anglo-Saxons) transitioned to rex Anglorum (King of the Angles/English) between Alfred and his grandson Athelstan who conquered the North. The shortening of the identity for simplicity is probably similar to the way 'Anglo-' has become a simpler synonym for 'Anglo-Celtic' in Australia as people become more detached from the ancestral differences, or people who may have once been self-consciously 'Scots-Irish' often just shorten it to Irish now in America.

Have also read that the Saxons in Britain may have used Angle/Englisc as an endonym alongside Saxon from very early on, which would explain why they seemingly had no problems calling their land Angle-land and themselves English. It may be that modern people split hairs between these tribes far more than they did themselves; especially after they'd been together in Britain for generations, and living in communities alongside Welsh/Britons (and 'Franks'?).

[Tooting Carmen]

Wales comes from Old Saxon: "Weelas", meaning foreigners.

[Mingle]

Why England is named after the Angles and not the Saxons is still a bit mysterious, I listened to something recently that went some way to explaining but I've forgotten what it was unfortunately. The continental Angles were pretty small and obscure, and the Jutes were unknown. That we talk of the Jutes with the other two groups in magnitude is often considered an arbitrary choice of Bede. The Saxons were the largest of the tribes on the continent, the first into Britain (hence the Insular Celts forever calling the English Saxons), and the Kindom of England was united by and under West Saxons.

Insular Celts use 'Saxon' for the English cause that was the Romano-British name for them, and they just borrowed it. They use that word cause that was the word in Latin, and they borrowed it from Latin, not from Old English.

The vast majority of England was Anglian land. Mercia, Northumberland, and East Anglia were established by the Angles and considered Anglian kingdoms. Wessex, Sussex, and Essex are named after the Saxons and people from there were called Saxons, but this is likely mostly cause of Romano-British influence similar to the case with Insular Celts using Saxon. 'Saxon' in the context of Germanic Britain was just adopted by some Germanic dynasties and came to be used as a regional identity, not an ethnic or linguistic one. There isn't a single instance in all of Old English where the British Germanics called their language Seaxisc or people Seaxecynn, but Englisc and Angelcynn are used all the time.

Kent was said to be a Jutish kingdom, so their inclusion wouldn't be completely arbitrary.

The fact that the Scots took the name of the Irish is well-known but still tickling. With regards to Eire, my birth certificate lists my father's birthplace as Eire, not Ireland. That held up a security clearance for me once because they didn't know wtf Eire was. I suppose it ceased to be officially designated as Eire in 1949 after it left the Commonwealth.

The chance of Wales being renamed Cum-ree in English is pretty low.

Wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually given the ongoing name change movements like Ivory Coast > Côte d'Ivoire, Turkey > Türkiye, and most recently a proposal of India > Bharat. If the Irish can get Eire, then Cymru isn't a stretch by any means.

On a related note, we had a naturally Anglicised form of the Old Welsh name for the region called Cumberland in English. But this name has been assigned to the former territory of Rheged, one of the last Welsh/Brythonic strongholds in modern England. If we had called Wales Cumberland instead of Wales in English, it would've been better as it would've matched what the Welsh called themselves, but in English. Another name used in English for Wales was Camberland, derived from the Latin name for Wales, Cambria.

From reading up on it again, the naming of England and the English after the Angles seems to largely be a shortening for simplicity, and likely for West Saxons to assert the political legitimacy of their rule over the Mercians and Northumbrians (Angles). The title of rex Angul-Saxonum (King of the Anglo-Saxons) transitioned to rex Anglorum (King of the Angles/English) between Alfred and his grandson Athelstan who conquered the North. The shortening of the identity for simplicity is probably similar to the way 'Anglo-' has become a simpler synonym for 'Anglo-Celtic' in Australia as people become more detached from the ancestral differences, or people who may have once been self-consciously 'Scots-Irish' often just shorten it to Irish now in America.

'Anglo-Saxon' was more or less just used in Latin phrases like rex Angulsaxonum to distinguish Insular 'Saxons' from the Mainland Saxons of Germany. There are actually three exceptions to this where Old English did use it, but these three instances were all after the 8th century and only in the most Latin influenced Old English texts. So this compound was used very rarely, and only by the Latin influenced class. The English would only call themselves 'English' in normal circumstances, not 'Anglo-Saxon,' which was a Latin designation.

So to summarise, England and its people/language are named after the Angles cause they made up the vast majority of Germanic Britain's inhabitants. 'Saxon' as a term was used cause of Romano-British influence and there's no evidence of British Germanics identifying with it ethnically.

[rothaer]

(...)

So to summarise, England and its people/language are named after the Angles cause they made up the vast majority of Germanic Britain's inhabitants. 'Saxon' as a term was used cause of Romano-British influence and there's no evidence of British Germanics identifying with it ethnically.

Don't you consider Wessex, Essex and Sussex Germanic self-identifications?

[rothaer]

(...)

The (Low) Saxon medieval chronist Widukind of Corvey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widukind_of_Corvey explained the name of the Anglo-Saxons by it meaning the Saxons that were living in an angle/corner of the sea, so kind of the fringe Saxons. Of course, he can be wrong.

If I'm not mistaken, Bede is the first to at all mention tribal Angles and Jutes among the having immigrated Germanics, btw. centuries after the immigration.

Bede actually doesn't even say Jutes but something that is more like Eotas which was a little Germanic tribe at the Rhine mouth. The Eotas that then settled primarily in Kent were those Migration Period Germanic immigrants that had the highest Roman influence in their material culture. In contrast to this Jutland Jutes would have been the Germanics with the least Roman influence. So it can be ruled out that the "Jutes" were Jutland Jutes, at least in that sense that they were coming directly from the Cimbrian Peninsula.

Considering the Saxon Shore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Shore in Northern France, many of the emigrating to Albion Saxons came from there and had been living for many generations under Roman rule. They even had lived as far west as in Armorica. It's almost ironical that pushed back Britons later went to there, kind of swapped land with those Saxons, and founded Small Britain (Brittanny).

[Mingle]

Don't you consider Wessex, Essex and Sussex Germanic self-identifications?

They are regional self-identifications, not ethnolinguistic ones. Englishmen from those regions considered themselves ethnic English and called their language English, not Saxon. Saxon was just their regional identity, which they probably adopted via Latin influence.

Englishmen with Saxon regional identity were also the majority of the Germanic British population under King Alfred (after the Danes conquered Northumberland and most of Mercia) and his West Saxon dialect was used as the standard dialect of Old English; yet he called his people ethnic Englishmen, his language English, and his nation England.

If I'm not mistaken, Bede is the first to at all mention tribal Angles and Jutes among the having immigrated Germanics, btw. centuries after the immigration.

Bede actually doesn't even say Jutes but something that is more like Eotas which was a little Germanic tribe at the Rhine mouth. The Eotas that then settled primarily in Kent were those Migration Period Germanic immigrants that had the highest Roman influence in their material culture. In contrast to this Jutland Jutes would have been the Germanics with the least Roman influence. So it can be ruled out that the "Jutes" were Jutland Jutes, at least in that sense that they were coming directly from the Cimbrian Peninsula.

<j> is supposed to make the <i> sound. It was invented as a letter to represent consonantal <i>. If you look at the letter <j>, it's just an <i> with a hook. It actually represented this sound in early English writings in words like wijf and lijf (now spelled wife and life). Its modern pronunciation in English is cause of French influence. And the <e> in Jute wasn't originally silent. So that would make Jutes more like Iotas pronunciation, which is much closer to Eotas.

If you look at the words for this name in other Germanic tongues, they're all pretty close and clearly referencing the same people:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...Germanic/eutaz

It also makes more sense that these Eotas were from Jutland given that its in the same neighborhood as where the Angles, Saxons, and Frisians came from, and they were part of the same migration.

Do you have a source about Eotas being from the Rhine mouth with the most Roman influence?

Considering the Saxon Shore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Shore in Northern France, many of the emigrating to Albion Saxons came from there and had been living for many generations under Roman rule.

I think 'Saxon' was just a name used by the Romans as a generic word for Germanics in the region and not an accurate ethnic descriptor in the context of the Saxon Shore since most of the migrants from the Saxon Shore to England would've realistically been Anglians (Anglians came to England via France, they didn't swim there from Jutland). Romans seemed to use the word 'Saxon' very liberally. Even the names German and Teuton were originally the names of specific tribes before the Romans generalised them onto all West Germanics, so this is probably similar. There's no other reason for Insular Celts to call the English 'Saxons', especially the Irish (Gaels) who bordered Anglian kingdoms as opposed to 'Saxon' ones in the deep south. Also, considering that English is closer to Frisian than either English or Frisian are to Saxon (Low Saxon), this shows that actual Saxon influence is overblown.

They even had lived as far west as in Armorica. It's almost ironical that pushed back Britons later went to there, kind of swapped land with those Saxons, and founded Small Britain (Brittanny).

True. Based on Y-DNA, much of the Norman army invading England would have comprised of Little Britons (Bretons), so a bit of a Brythonic Reconquista.

[rothaer]

(…)

It’s a funny thing as we actually apply diametrally opposite approaches on this tribe question. While you do what you elaborated I follow as a provocant working hypothesis to question if there were at all tribal Angles in England and not all just Saxons (and a few Eotas). Background is that angle is not just a tribe name but a Germanic productive word that means an angle, corner, and that could emerge independently by the usage of Germanic language.

If tribal Angles are proved for Britain, I’d be absolutely fine with that as well.

Do you have a source about Eotas being from the Rhine mouth with the most Roman influence?

Unfortunately I don’t find it now (I should be able to find a source, though) but I want to make clear my statement:

1. There was a litte Germanic tribe called Eotas at the Rhine mouth.
2. The archaeological material culture of the Germanic settlers in areas that traditionally are considered settled by Jutes (f. i. East Kent) show more Roman influence than those considered settled by non-Jutes.

As for the latter I found this in the English Wikipedia (emphasis by me):

"Although not all historians accept Bede's scheme for the settlement of Britain into Anglian, Jutish and Saxon areas as perfectly accurate,[36] the archaeological evidence indicates that the peoples of west Kent were culturally distinct from those in the east of Kent, with west Kent sharing the 'Saxon' characteristics of its neighbours in the south east of England.[37] Brooches and bracteates found in east Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire showed a strong Frankish and North Sea influence from the mid-fifth century to the late sixth century compared to north German styles found elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England.[39][37][40] There is discussion about who crafted the jewellery (found in the archaeological sites of Kent). Suggestions include crafts people who had been trained in the Roman workshops of northern Gaul or the Rhineland. It is also possible that those artisans went on to develop their own individual style.[41] By the late 6th century grave goods indicate that west Kent had adopted the distinctive east Kent material culture.[37]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutes

It also makes more sense that these Eotas were from Jutland given that its in the same neighborhood as where the Angles, Saxons, and Frisians came from, and they were part of the same migration.

I agree that a neighborhood would make sense and also this is pointing against an origin of the immigrants in Jutland. Because many if not most of the Saxons or what was called Saxons came from just across the English channel.

I found this in the German Wikipedia article on the Saxon Shore:

„In Britannien eingewanderte germanische Stämme haben zum Teil früher an den Rheinmündungen, um Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) oder im Gebiet des bis heute unbekannten Grannona (entweder bei Granville oder Port-en-Bessin-Huppain) gesiedelt, auch dort wurde diese Region als litus Saxonicum, als eine von den Stammesangehörigen der Sachsen bewohnte Küste bezeichnet.[5“

„Translation: Some of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Britain had previously settled at the mouths of the Rhine, around Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) or in the area of Grannona (either near Granville or Port-en-Bessin-Huppain), which is still unknown today; this region was also referred to as litus Saxonicum, a coast inhabited by the Saxon tribesmen.[5“

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenk%C3%BCste

Also, the onomast (place name linguist) Jürgen Udolph has examined what Germanic name types show up where and came to the conclusion that the imported to Britain Germanic place name types do not have their corresponding sources in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein but in more continental Germania and among that pretty much in Flanders and in Northern France.

Maybe you can access this article of his in English:

https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.321.02udo

I have it in German as a PDF file. Another pic is this showing the distribution of wik place names.



Tribal Angles doubtlessly existed. They likely made up one of two important sources of the new tribe of Thuringians. When Charlemagne ordered to write up the tribal law of Thuringians (there had been a serious uprising in Thuringia against the Frankish rule after in a marriage context the Thuringian law had been not applied in favour of the Frankish law - it was likely just a pretext for the uprising but nevertheless) this was done and one old copy of the „Lex Thurgingorum“ does wear the title „Lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum“. You also have place names that refer to the Angles tribe name in Thuringia like Westerengel and Kirchengel.

Also, considering that English is closer to Frisian than either English or Frisian are to Saxon (Low Saxon), this shows that actual Saxon influence is overblown.

This comparison does not prove a relative linguistic distance to (Low) Saxon, because you here do compare „Anglo-Saxon“ to itself and, of course, that relation is always closer.

What?!

It’s commonly accepted among scholars that the Frisians essentially are not derived from the antique Frisii but from later Germanics that are considered tribally Saxons.

From the English Wikipedia article (emphasis by me), and the last contradicting sentence I just quote as well as for completeness:

„Final demise of the ancient Frisii

The emperor Constantius Chlorus campaigned successfully against several Germanic peoples during the internecine civil wars that brought him to sole power over the Roman Empire. Among them were the Frisii and Chamavi, who were described in the Panegyrici Latini (Manuscript VIII) as being forced to resettle within Roman territory as laeti (i.e., Roman-era serfs) in c. 296.[23] This is the last reference to the ancient Frisii in the historical record. However, they appear once more, now in the archaeological record. The discovery of a type of pottery unique to 4th century Frisia known as Tritzum earthenware shows that an unknown number of them were resettled in Flanders and Kent under the aforementioned Roman coercion.[24]

If there were any Frisii left in Frisia, they fell victim to the whims of nature, civil strife and piracy. After several hundred years of favorable conditions, the natural environment in the low-lying coastal regions of northwestern Europe began to deteriorate c. 250 AD and gradually worsened over the next 200 years. Rising sea levels and storm surges combined to flood some areas. Many deserted village sites were silted over. The situation was probably aggravated by a shift to a cooler, wetter climate in the region as well as by the introduction of malaria and other epidemic diseases.[25][26][27][28][29]

In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century it dropped dramatically. Archaeological surveys indicate that only small pockets of the original population stayed behind (e.g. in the Groningen coastal marshes).[30] The coastal lands remained largely unpopulated for the next one or two centuries. As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians.[5] Their Old Frisian language, however, was more intricately related to Old English spoken by their relatives settling abroad, than to the Old Saxon language spoken by the people staying behind in Germany.

Arguing against the replacement theory, recent excavations in the coastal dunes of Kennemerland show clear indication of a permanent habitation.[31][32] „

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii

[#Oda#]

...

Also, the onomast (place name linguist) Jürgen Udolph has examined what Germanic name types show up where and came to the conclusion that the imported to Britain Germanic place name types do not have their corresponding sources in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein but in continental Germania and among that pretty much in Flanders and in Northern France.
...

Referring to the ending "wik" you mention:
Braunschweig = Brunswick is in Lower Saxony btw.