How Countries in the British Isles Got Their Names

[Mingle]

To my perception they don't really identify as Frisians but as Ostfriesen as the inhabitants of Ostfriesland and a regional identity within the Lower Saxon speakers. Still (Lower) Saxons are a too big entity for being referred to by all of its inhabitants. Although tribal Saxons, also Oldenburger, Ditmarsians, Holsatians and Westphalians f. i. do identify primarily as belonging to these entities rather than referring to being Saxons (which is no contradiction). The Ostfriesen were picked as the ones in Germany that you do make stupidity jokes of, implying that they are very stupid. I've no clue how this came and I also see no stupidity-related reason. Maybe they behaved in a proud way that gave others the motivation to start teasing them. I really don't know. However, this "attack" on them may have forced them to relate to being Ostfriesen and by that have contributed to strengthen their respective self-awareness.

Maybe #Oda# , an Eastphalian that does not even expand her primary identity to the whole of Eastphalia, can contribute and/or correct me.

That'd make sense if true. It'd be similar to native Dutch-speakers from West Friesland (northern North Holland) having Dutch ethnic identity and West Frisian regional identity.

[#Oda#]

That'd make sense if true. It'd be similar to native Dutch-speakers from West Friesland (northern North Holland) having Dutch ethnic identity and West Frisian regional identity.

There's a region named Rheiderland which is half Dutch and half East Frisian and they have always been moving around there as if there's no border at all.

[Creoda]

Throwing this in there


Distribution of cruciform brooches in 5th-6th century England

Kentish Square-headed
There are two main styles of Kentish square-headed brooch: the Jutish-style and the Continental-style. The Jutish-style brooches closely resemble brooches originating in Jutland, in the amount of animal decoration and often the inclusion of a disc on the bow of the brooch. The Continental-style consists of simpler animal decoration and is usually combined with inset garnets.

[Creoda]

This is an Anglicisation of the German name by the way, it should be Brunswich in English. -wich is the English equivalent as seen in names like Norwich, Woolwich, Greenwich, Harwich, etc. It's the same as the Vik in Viking (called Wiching in Old English).

There are plenty of -wick's in England though as well.

[Creoda]

Posted in an earlier thread but worth posting again, almost all the CWE/Gaulish ancestry found in the early Anglo-Saxon period is in Southern England, not in Anglian territories.

[Mingle]

There are plenty of -wick's in England though as well.

English words that use <k>/<ck> instead of <ch>/<tch> are cause of Norse influence.

[Creoda]

English words that use <k>/<ck> instead of <ch>/<tch> are cause of Norse influence.

You mean in pronunciation? 'cause as far as I know they were all spelled -wic in the Early Middle Ages.

[Mingle]

You mean in pronunciation?

Spelling.

'cause as far as I know they were all spelled -wic in the Early Middle Ages.

<c> represented both the /tʃ/ and /k/ sounds in Old English, digraphs with <-h> such as <ch> are from French influence and didn't exist in Old English.

Compare native English ditch with the Norse influenced dyke, or rich with Norse influenced rike. When there's two spellings and one is with <(t)ch> and another with <(c)k>, it's a safe bet that the latter is Norse influenced. Same with <sh> vs. <sk>.

[Mingle]

I’ve no real objections towards that thought and the Procopius quote was unknown to me.

Looking into the genealogy of the English Saxon polities (Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex), their original genealogy seem to be fabricated. And they seem to be using ones invented by Jutes for them or having stolen from the Welsh. They probably didn't have much to do with Saxons around when Procopius at least based on their claimed genealogy. Jutes were still a significant force on the other hand and probably the main group in Southeast England rather than just Kent and Wight.

There's basically two distinct groups of Saxons, and they lost their Saxon ethnic identity very early on if they had it. These are the Western Saxons of Wessex and the Eastern Saxons of Sussex, Middlesex, and Essex. For convenience, I'm going to group the latter three regions together under "Greater Essex." Wessex was not part of the original Saxon Shore of Roman Britain, only Greater Essex was. Greater Essex has the least Celtic influence in toponymy of any region in Britain, which further shows they were part of a separate earlier wave of migrants than the later ones that settled the rest of England. Saxons migrated from the Gaulish Saxon Shore to the British Saxon Shore (Greater Essex) during Roman times while the ones in Wessex were part of a separate migration wave. This can be seen in their genealogy as well (which I'll get to later). They came to both sides of the Saxon Shore (Southern Britain, Northern Gaul) under Roman supervision. The Saxon Shore was a military district and the Saxon colonists were military colonists (permanent residents) employed by Romans. Once the Franks conquered Gaul, more Saxons were pushed into Roman Britain. And the Saxon Shore wasn't exclusively Saxon, but they were the main group, which is why it was named after them. Franks were another prominent group in the Saxon Shore. Suevi were mentioned too, but this could've been referring to Saxons as it was a very generic name.

Now onto the genealogies of the Saxon kingdoms. As I mentioned, Greater Essex was part of the Saxon Shore of Roman Britain. It can be split into three regions - Essex, Middlesex, Sussex. In between Essex and Sussex is Kent, which was a Jutish kingdom. Both Essex and Sussex were tributary states of Kent and not independent kingdoms like Kent was. Middlesex was likely originally between Essex and Sussex i.e. in the middle of two -sex polities, but is now pushed to the side bounded by Kent and Surrey instead of Sussex. Sussex's founder is given an Anglian name that doesn't exist among Saxons (Ælli), he may have been confused by a scribe for the Ælli of the Anglian Kingdom of Northumberland. And his three sons are fictitious names invented by working backwards from the names of major cities in Sussex that aren't named by Bede or Welsh annalists. Essex's founder is called Æscwine or Ercanwine, a clear reference to the patriarch Æsc of Jutish nation. Since Essex was controlled by Jutish Kent and they have the same genealogy, Essex's kings would've been Jutes. One sign of being a proper independent kingdom as opposed to a tributary state is minting their own separate coins. Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex didn't mint their own coins while Wessex and Kent did. So Greater Essex was basically comprised of Jutish regions for the most part, which is why Procopius would've mentioned them as the main Germanic tribe in Britain alongside the Angles.

Regarding Wessex, their genealogy is unconnected to Jutes or any other Germanics, but seems to have been ripped off from the Welsh. Their first king and founder has a native British (Welsh) name, Cerdic, as opposed to a Germanic one. And they follow the tradition of Welsh princes of claiming descent from Gewissa. Cerdic's also the son of Elisa, who also has a Welsh name. West Saxons are also the only English Saxons to refer to British Celts as "Brit" rather than "Welsh". And two of Cerdic's sons are named Wihtgar and Port, who are said to have landed at Wight and Portsmouth. The odds of not one, but two people, just randomly happening to land in cities with their names in it is virtually impossible... So yeah, this seems like a fabricated story borrowed from the Welsh and nothing to do with Saxons.

By the way, besides the Romans and Insular Celts, another group that had a lot of historical contact with British Germanics (Old English) were the Norse and they never once called the English "Saxon." In fact, they called them "Swabian" once, which was also a generic word for West Germanics.

Your thoughts can be supported by that the Roman Saxon Shore was on both sides of the English Channel, i. e. also in Britain, and that this termonological fixation already may have introduced the Saxon name in Britain as a general name for Germanics.

After properly reading that Frisian link I sent you, I realise I underestimated the Saxon influence in England (as well as the Saxon Shore of Gaul). Saxon regions are strongly correlated with regions of England that didn't have any runic inscriptions while Anglian and Jutish regions are strongly correlated with regions where runes are found. So while "Saxon" was used liberally, that could've been mainly done in Britain in later times (but it was done in Gaul too to some extent). But regardless, Saxon ethnic identity didn't exist in England in Alfred's time when the Romans and Celts were using it for them, as they are only recorded calling themselves English, not Saxon or Anglo-Saxon.

Another thing is that the Saxon tribe anyhow was a new tribe and nobody knows how it at all emerged and found together. There was not even a common king among (Low) Saxons. Only in periods of war a common leader was installed. Prior known tribes as Chauki, Frisii, Angrivarii, Brukteri and Tubanti etc. likely merged to a new tribe of Saxons. Whether there earlier had been a small core of tribal Saxons is unclear. Nothing is known of such a tribe and the early and singleton mentioning at Ptolmy is likely no mentioning of them.

Bructeri had Frankish identity according to Bede. They were considered separate from Saxons and their border with Saxons was at at Lippe in the northwestern part of modern Westfalia. Tacitus says that the Bructeri were destroyed by the Angrivarii (Angrians) and Chamavi (of Hamaland AKA Eastern Netherlands and Northern Westfalia). They were probably chased across the Rhine by these two groups where they were accepted by their fellow Franks.


Chauci also lived in Northern Westfalia where they would've replaced the Bructeri. Due to the resemblance of toponymies in the former Chauci territory with the Frisian language, the Chauci were likely part of the Anglo-Frisian group i.e. closer to Frisians than to Saxons. Maybe the New Frisians that settled Friesland during the Anglo-Saxon migration were just Coastal Chauci? Former Chauci territory contains toponyms ending in -a (Withula, Bracla, Sitnia, Alladna, Frethenna, etc.) which are a Frisian feature. As Frisians were never recorded in Westfalia and the Chauci neighbored them, the Frisian-like Chauci are the best assumption for who these toponyms come from.


Then there's -husun which is associated with Angrians in toponyms like Bennenhusun, Bovinkhusun, Sevinhuson, etc. Engern was also one of the main Saxon lands so the Angrians that expanded into Westfalia are probably the same as those that identified as Saxons later on. Westfalia and Eastfalia are relatively young names that date back to around the Carolingian period and aren't original Saxon tribes, just regional names ("Western Plain" and "Eastern Plain") that got turned into Saxon subgroups later (same with the North Albingians). Cherusci was also used for the Germans of Engern and they were said to be closely allied with Angrians, but likely just the same people with different names. Cherusci are also said to have bordered the Chatti and Chauci who were the western neighbors of Angrians, and this wouldn't be possible unless they were Angrians themselves. Their name possibly comes from the cheru (kheru) sword that they used (though this etymology is disputed). And -sci (-ski) is a demonym suffix like *thiudiskaz (which Deutsch derives from), still used in Scandinavian languages. Ambrones and Fosi were probably also the same as them, with these names being geography based (from the Ems River and Fuhse River respectively). It's like how there was one Slavic people, but they got called different names by different groups (Veneti or Wend by Germans, Sclaveni or Sklabenoi by Greeks, Antes by Sarmatians). So basically; Angrian, Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones were just different names of the same people. Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones seem to be exonyms based on their etymology and Angrivarii their native name. These people later in history became known by the name "Saxon". Saxons may have been named after their regional Saxnot deity even if their name originally referred to a type of knife.

Translated from the German Wikipedia article on Saxons:

„Ptolemy probably originally wrote "ΑΒΙΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Aviones), which was changed to "ΣΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Saxones) by later transcribers. In the majority of manuscripts, the word Saxony is also not found, but an intermediate form "ΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Axones)[6].“

Aviones probably weren't Saxons, but Axones probably were.

It has to be considered that also the Alemanns, the Thuringians, the Bavarians and the Franks were previously not existing Germanic tribes that had emerged through re-groupings and mergings of other tribes.

Alemanns were probably one of the tribes of Germania Superior (Vangiones, Nemetes, or Tulingi). Their name was also said to be originally used in the generic sense for Germanics as a whole.

Bavarians are just the Marcomanni of Bohemia I'm pretty sure. Their region was named after the Celtic Boii and they ended up adopting that regional name as their ethnic name over time (Boi + [Germanic] -er → Boyer/Bayer → Boarn/Bayern/Bayerland). Bohemia (which is also a Germanic form of the Celtic name, Boi + [Germanic] -haimaz) and Bayern are both named after the Boii. Eastern Germany and Bohemia were previously German (West Germanic) lands bordering East Germanic Vandals in BC times before the Slavic expansion.

Franks seem to be a tribal confederation from their early origins and not really a prominent tribe from antiquity.

Thurings are connected to the Hermanduri: Hermanduri → Duri (Thuri)+ -ing ("descendant of") → Thuring

But as you said, their origins are referenced as being a mix of the English and Werns. So could the Hermanduri have migrated north and absorbed the English and Werns in Northwest Mecklenburg or Holstein?

I think that we even have to expand our imagination to the point where it’s not a matter of fact if some folks are Saxons, but a matter of opinion or common sense. And such views may have been uncertain for quite a while. I read the text that allegendly was spoken when the Frankish king Chlodowech I was baptised. In spite of that the Franks had exited for quite a while there was said „bow your head, Sugambrian“. I was astounded when I read that a long time ago and looked it up and the Sugambrians was one of the smaller tribes that had merged to become Franks. But in the view of traditional and knowledgeable social classes the Frankish king was remembered to have emerged out of Sugambrian family, hence being in fact a Sugambrian.

Makes sense to me, Franks were a confederation after all.

Resembling conditions may have been regarding the understanding who was a Saxon and who not. Tribal Angles may have been part of the new tribe of Saxons like they were a part of the new tribe of Thuringians. By emigration they left the political sphere of the continental Saxon tribal confederation which may have re-made them Angles. Like among recently emigrating to Germany Turks after Turkish-Kurdish conflicts more and more exhibited themselvs as Kurds resulting in that there are abt. 500.000 Kurds in Germany in spite of that they immigrated under the Turk label.

I don't think that was the case though. Since they're distinguished in England, it's reasonable to assume they would've been in Schleswig-Holstein too. I think Saxons would've ended up getting subsumed into the English "tribal" label in Britain and I don't see any evidence of the opposite happening in Germany.

Thanks, very interesting and I read almost all.

I agree to much, in particular also to that there may have been a not really tribally defined continuum of North Sea Germanic speakers.

Completely new to me was that the North Frisians are said to be strongly diveded between those on the big islands and those on the halligs and at the coast. I never heard of that before. To my information it was undisputed that they all are later immigrants from Frisland in the Netherlands.

That were interesting thoughts whether one of the groups in fact was a remnant of such continental „Anglo-Frisians“. In contrast to what is said in the article, the fact that the Jutlanders did not also exhibit common linguistic innovations is no hurdle to that idea. Because the Jutlanders linguistically are immigrated (in the 6th century) North Germanic speaking Danes from the Danish islands and Scania. They linguistically replaced likely West Germanic speaking Jutes. This is why you have no Germanic dialect continuum at the German-Danish border.

Interesting is also the find of where runic inscriptions were found in Britain and how that geographically stunningly is concordant with the claimed settlement area of Angles and Jutes.

I agree. All new information to me as well.

But I don't see why a new Germanic continuum couldn't have formed after the Danes arrived? Scandinavian and Low German remained mutually intelligible dialects for centuries after Danes colonised Jutland, the split between Norse and West Germanic would've happened after the first millennium at the earliest. There's no real geographic barrier between them and plenty of cultural exchange continued taking place through the Hansa and later High German influence in their Lutheran liturgy. North German and Dutch names and cuisine are more similar to Scandinavian ones than to South German and Austrian ones if I'm not mistaken.

The author’s question mark on the essentially only late runic inscriptions in the Alemannic area in spite of that they had been there since centuries without such inscriptions is very legit. Just some days ago I by chance read about that and it was told by scholars that there is assumed a connection with the Thurigian empire having beed destructen and conquered by Franks (and likely Saxons) in 531/534 AD and that that event removed a prior barrier. As the Franks acted unusually harschly towards the Thuringians, I also consider the possibility of Thuringian refugees. And if you consider that prior tribal Angles are said to have been one of the main components of Thuringians the showing of of runes is not that surprising anymore.

As I earlier said, the Angles and the Warini are said to be the core Thuringians. Both had been connected to the southern Jutland peninsula, however, archaeology suggests so, and they had been living in Holstein (Angles) and Mecklenburg (Warini) before they moved to Thuringia.

What do you make of the Hermanduri-Thuringi connection?

As I briefly mentioned above, Thurings were described as living in Hadeln before being overtaken by Saxons.

Have you heard the story? If not, what basically happened was, according to the Thuringian Chronicle, a group of Saxons wearing gold encountered Thurings in Hadeln. A Saxon met with a Thuring and told him he was looking to sell his gold for anything the Thuring agreed to give. So the Thuring was like, "Anything? How about a lap full of soil?" And the Saxon accepted without any hesitation (soil was scarce there). When returning with the gold, the Thurings celebrated and praised their dealer thinking they got the gold for very cheap. And after the Saxon returned with the soil, he started sprinkling soil over the fields with his fellow Saxons and they built forts to claim the land as their own. The Thurings saw this land claim and got angry at the Saxons for violating their pact. Saxons told them that they bought the land fair and square with their gold and the land was now theirs. The Thurings didn't accept this so attacked them and ended up getting defeated. They fought several times until the Saxons destroyed them.

There's another historical narrative about this basically stating that the Thurings under Hermanafrid were fighting the Franks under Theodoric. Theodoric getting desperate told the Saxon chief Hadugot that he would give them land conquered from the Thurings (Hadeln) if he helped them, which he did. In connection to this, Widukind also mentions Saxons fighting Thurings under Hermanafrid in Ronnenberg (near Hannover) in a battle lasting three days that the Saxons won, after which the Thurings fled to the Halle region (which is a modern Thuringian-speaking region). These Thurings were weakened by Franks first since they were fighting the Franks at the same time. This story anyways kind of implies that Engern and Eastfalia at least were previously occupied by Thurings before the Saxons (and Franks) pushed them south of the Hart Mountains.

[rothaer]

Looking into the genealogy of the English Saxon polities (Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex), their original genealogy seem to be fabricated. And they seem to be using ones invented by Jutes for them or having stolen from the Welsh. They probably didn't have much to do with Saxons around when Procopius at least based on their claimed genealogy. Jutes were still a significant force on the other hand and probably the main group in Southeast England rather than just Kent and Wight.

There's basically two distinct groups of Saxons, and they lost their Saxon ethnic identity very early on if they had it. These are the Western Saxons of Wessex and the Eastern Saxons of Sussex, Middlesex, and Essex. For convenience, I'm going to group the latter three regions together under "Greater Essex." Wessex was not part of the original Saxon Shore of Roman Britain, only Greater Essex was. Greater Essex has the least Celtic influence in toponymy of any region in Britain, which further shows they were part of a separate earlier wave of migrants than the later ones that settled the rest of England. Saxons migrated from the Gaulish Saxon Shore to the British Saxon Shore (Greater Essex) during Roman times while the ones in Wessex were part of a separate migration wave. This can be seen in their genealogy as well (which I'll get to later). They came to both sides of the Saxon Shore (Southern Britain, Northern Gaul) under Roman supervision. The Saxon Shore was a military district and the Saxon colonists were military colonists (permanent residents) employed by Romans. Once the Franks conquered Gaul, more Saxons were pushed into Roman Britain. And the Saxon Shore wasn't exclusively Saxon, but they were the main group, which is why it was named after them. Franks were another prominent group in the Saxon Shore.

Suevi were mentioned too, but this could've been referring to Saxons as it was a very generic name.

Just as a side note that Suebi are something old and specific as it depicts a cultural-ritual confederation. From all my dealings it seems to me unlikely that the Suebi name became a generalised name for Germanics (except for the 20th century Danube Swabian term for Germans in Hungary and the 19th century szwaby Polish slur for Germans). I’d take the Suevi mentioning serious. On the other hand Tacitus counted Angli as Suevi...

Now onto the genealogies of the Saxon kingdoms. As I mentioned, Greater Essex was part of the Saxon Shore of Roman Britain. It can be split into three regions - Essex, Middlesex, Sussex. In between Essex and Sussex is Kent, which was a Jutish kingdom. Both Essex and Sussex were tributary states of Kent and not independent kingdoms like Kent was. Middlesex was likely originally between Essex and Sussex i.e. in the middle of two -sex polities, but is now pushed to the side bounded by Kent and Surrey instead of Sussex. Sussex's founder is given an Anglian name that doesn't exist among Saxons (Ælli), he may have been confused by a scribe for the Ælli of the Anglian Kingdom of Northumberland. And his three sons are fictitious names invented by working backwards from the names of major cities in Sussex that aren't named by Bede or Welsh annalists. Essex's founder is called Æscwine or Ercanwine, a clear reference to the patriarch Æsc of Jutish nation.

Maybe. But in general the tempting try to connect specific Germanic names to various tribes has not been successful. On the other hand you do have for certain periods of time some tribal popularities visible. What’s the etymology of the name member Æsc? (Ercan is clear.)

Since Essex was controlled by Jutish Kent and they have the same genealogy, Essex's kings would've been Jutes. One sign of being a proper independent kingdom as opposed to a tributary state is minting their own separate coins. Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex didn't mint their own coins while Wessex and Kent did. So Greater Essex was basically comprised of Jutish regions for the most part, which is why Procopius would've mentioned them as the main Germanic tribe in Britain alongside the Angles.

The rulers are a little bit like Y DNA haplogroups. You prove a connection but it remains unclear to what extent that connection is representative for the whole ancestry respectively population.

Regarding Wessex, their genealogy is unconnected to Jutes or any other Germanics, but seems to have been ripped off from the Welsh. Their first king and founder has a native British (Welsh) name, Cerdic, as opposed to a Germanic one. And they follow the tradition of Welsh princes of claiming descent from Gewissa. Cerdic's also the son of Elisa, who also has a Welsh name. West Saxons are also the only English Saxons to refer to British Celts as "Brit" rather than "Welsh". And two of Cerdic's sons are named Wihtgar and Port, who are said to have landed at Wight and Portsmouth. The odds of not one, but two people, just randomly happening to land in cities with their names in it is virtually impossible... So yeah, this seems like a fabricated story borrowed from the Welsh and nothing to do with Saxons.

Yes. And interesting elaborations.

By the way, besides the Romans and Insular Celts, another group that had a lot of historical contact with British Germanics (Old English) were the Norse and they never once called the English "Saxon." In fact, they called them "Swabian" once, which was also a generic word for West Germanics.

Which would be correct also without a generic meaning, see above.

After properly reading that Frisian link I sent you, I realise I underestimated the Saxon influence in England (as well as the Saxon Shore of Gaul). Saxon regions are strongly correlated with regions of England that didn't have any runic inscriptions while Anglian and Jutish regions are strongly correlated with regions where runes are found. So while "Saxon" was used liberally, that could've been mainly done in Britain in later times (but it was done in Gaul too to some extent). But regardless, Saxon ethnic identity didn't exist in England in Alfred's time when the Romans and Celts were using it for them, as they are only recorded calling themselves English, not Saxon or Anglo-Saxon.

Both this and the not equal geographical distribution of runic inscriptions I’ll have to digest and keep in mind for further dealings.

Bructeri had Frankish identity according to Bede. They were considered separate from Saxons and their border with Saxons was at at Lippe in the northwestern part of modern Westfalia. Tacitus says that the Bructeri were destroyed by the Angrivarii (Angrians) and Chamavi (of Hamaland AKA Eastern Netherlands and Northern Westfalia). They were probably chased across the Rhine by these two groups where they were accepted by their fellow Franks.

Before I listed some tribes merged into Saxons I for avoiding unnecessary wrongs had a brief look into the German Wikipedia and there picked up Bructeri for the first time. Well…

Chauci also lived in Northern Westfalia where they would've replaced the Bructeri. Due to the resemblance of toponymies in the former Chauci territory with the Frisian language, the Chauci were likely part of the Anglo-Frisian group i.e. closer to Frisians than to Saxons. Maybe the New Frisians that settled Friesland during the Anglo-Saxon migration were just Coastal Chauci?

The Chauci are commonly considered a core of the new Saxon tribe. But it doesn’t necessarly contradict what you say. I’d assume them to have spoken essentially like the new Frisians. I know that you somewhat ignored the referred to by me quotes about the new Frisians being derived from areas that were and are assigned without reservation to tribal Saxons, but just keep in mind that it’s assessed like that by resonable scholars. I don’t know whether you also were at Anthrogenica but there were two Frisians from the Netherlands or more correct: one Frisian and one wannabe Frisian. And they both claimed that all up there were „Saxo-Frisians“, no matter whether they spoke (new) Frisian or the historically expanding (Low) Saxon language.

Former Chauci territory contains toponyms ending in -a (Withula, Bracla, Sitnia, Alladna, Frethenna, etc.) which are a Frisian feature. As Frisians were never recorded in Westfalia and the Chauci neighbored them, the Frisian-like Chauci are the best assumption for who these toponyms come from.

Frisians are so „lazy“ in their prononciations and spellings - that is making up their language - that you could just screamingly run away. I don’t know how this is with the toponyms but regarding the family names like Reemtsma, Brinkama etc. -ma is a shortening for -mann. The low Saxons also go in that direction but less extreme. Place names ending with -sen are shorted from -husen and place names with -um are shortened from -heim.
This said, I take for granted that your mentioned toponyms characteristically ending with -a are nothing but such a horrible late development that is unconnected to the linguistic origin. I even think that this development is just because NW Germany lacked a continous layer of STRICT scholars and burocrates! NW Germans are more practical and un-fanatic, too un-fanatic imo. What am I at all talking about? In the local Hessian dialect Mannheim is spoken Monnem. And I’m fully convinced that if there would not have been the German strictness and sense for correctness among higher level burocrates it would today have been written Monnem instead of Mannheim!

Then there's -husun which is associated with Angrians in toponyms like Bennenhusun, Bovinkhusun, Sevinhuson, etc.

Such a tribal association can not be maintained. -husun is simply the Low German form for High German -hausen. You have myriads of -hausen names in Germany that - if not lazy shortenend to -sen (Tötensen, Boltersen, Bevensen) - in Northern Germany exhibit the Low german form like in Kellinghusen in Holstein. (And Holstein btw. being an embarassing etymological accident: You had the Holt-saten (those who sit (dwell) in the wood, would be Holz-sassen in High German), slightly abraded called Holsaten and later Holsten (pronounced „holstn“). And then someone hypercorrected an assumed Low German sten (stone) to High German Stein. )

Engern was also one of the main Saxon lands so the Angrians that expanded into Westfalia are probably the same as those that identified as Saxons later on. Westfalia and Eastfalia are relatively young names that date back to around the Carolingian period and aren't original Saxon tribes, just regional names ("Western Plain" and "Eastern Plain")

Damn, I didn’t know and should long have looked it up!

that got turned into Saxon subgroups later (same with the North Albingians). Cherusci was also used for the Germans of Engern and they were said to be closely allied with Angrians, but likely just the same people with different names.

But imo expressing sequences of mergings and splitting-ups rather than simultanously having different terms for the same subject.

Cherusci are also said to have bordered the Chatti and Chauci who were the western neighbors of Angrians, and this wouldn't be possible unless they were Angrians themselves. Their name possibly comes from the cheru (kheru) sword that they used (though this etymology is disputed). And -sci (-ski) is a demonym suffix like *thiudiskaz (which Deutsch derives from), still used in Scandinavian languages.

I did not yet hear of an etymology of the Cherusci (If Laly would have said it, it would quite obvious have been chère Russki) name. However, the endings are clear.

Ambrones and Fosi were probably also the same as them, with these names being geography based (from the Ems River and Fuhse River respectively).

Interesting with the Ems river. The older spelling of the connected town Emden was Embden. That would fit.
Often Ambrones are put in some relation to the island of Amrum and actually a number of scholars claim that there can be assumed a pre Germanic and pre Italic tribe IE common tribe that after a split-up also gave the name to the Umbrians. I guess that would then not be compatible with the river Ems.

It's like how there was one Slavic people, but they got called different names by different groups (Veneti or Wend by Germans, Sclaveni or Sklabenoi by Greeks, Antes by Sarmatians). So basically; Angrian, Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones were just different names of the same people. Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones seem to be exonyms based on their etymology and Angrivarii their native name.

The Slavs were distributed over a so big area that they encountered different people that had no connection with each other, which much promoted the existence of a number of different names for the same subject. I’m a little bit sceptical if those conditions can be projected to smaller Germanic tribes where all neighbours can communicate with each other and also with them.

These people later in history became known by the name "Saxon". Saxons may have been named after their regional Saxnot deity even if their name originally referred to a type of knife.

Maybe.

Aviones probably weren't Saxons, but Axones probably were.

But you understand that according to that opinion (that I do follow) Axones is just a typo by copists for Aviones? That was the reason to display how resembling it looks in Greek letters.

Alemanns were probably one of the tribes of Germania Superior (Vangiones, Nemetes, or Tulingi). Their name was also said to be originally used in the generic sense for Germanics as a whole.

I recently read some 30 pages on the Alemann name only. (Here, starting at the PDF page 126: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/alemannien-und-der-norden-internationales-symposium-vom-18-20-oktober-2001-in-zrich-3110178915-9783110178913_compress.pdf)

The most common opinion is that the tribe name formed after the penetration of the Limes at abt. 260 AD (I don’t recall the exact year.)

As for Germania superior: I looked at the extent of that province after the Arminius battle and I must say that I’m not aware that there at all lived any Germanics in that territory. Have a though for that as for the turn of times. I consider the Germania superior province at that time having a hoax name in order to mask the fact that so much of Roman ruled Germania had become lost.

Bavarians are just the Marcomanni of Bohemia I'm pretty sure. Their region was named after the Celtic Boii and they ended up adopting that regional name as their ethnic name over time (Boi + [Germanic] -er → Boyer/Bayer → Boarn/Bayern/Bayerland). Bohemia (which is also a Germanic form of the Celtic name, Boi + [Germanic] -haimaz) and Bayern are both named after the Boii. Eastern Germany and Bohemia were previously German (West Germanic) lands bordering East Germanic Vandals in BC times before the Slavic expansion.

Interestingly (even) the somewhat anti-German Cosmas of Prague that wrote at abt. 1000 AD stated that Bohemia is located „in Germania“. Stunning that educated Slavic scholars at that time seemingly ”remembered” the Slavic expansion.

There is a relative cluelessness among scholars as for what are Bavarians. The general lines are clear. Boiohaemum. But already the new name instead of older names does suggest that this is likely not just a continuation of Markomanns. Prior to the Slavic expansion Bohemia had belonged to the Longobard empire. Before they came to Pannonia their king Wacho had even his ”capital” in (likely Northern) Bohemia. Hermundurs are somewhat connected to Markomanns and will have contributed to the Germanic population. In Moravia and westernmost Slovakia you had Quadi. You also had a little kindom by the Rugii in Rugiland directly at the Danube and that area likely was continously Germanic since the migration period and there was later nothing else than Baiuvarii. When the Avars conquered most lands at the Middle Danube in the context of emigrating Longobards 567/568 likely loads of Germanics were pushed westwards and ended up in the later Bavarian tribal area. There are numerous Eastern Germanic influences among early Bavarians. If you consider what all had been left for kind of Germanics at the Middle Danube when they got freed from the Huns at the battle of Nedao in 454, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Herulii, Skirii, Quadi, Gepids, remaining Longobards, Vandals, then you can imagine that there might have come a lot of different Germanics. And considering that the last Celtic tribe in Bohemia/Moravia was heard of in the Markomannic wars at abt. 166 (it were Cotini in Moravia, I think) then it can be assumed that from then during additionally 400 years of Germanic rule and settlement likely all Celts will have become Germanised per 568. This implicates that the Baiuvarii also will have hailed from the Boii etc.

As for direct ties and traces such are given by the Friedenhain-Prestovice archaeological culture: https://www.historisches-lexikon-bay...Prestovice.jpg

Franks seem to be a tribal confederation from their early origins and not really a prominent tribe from antiquity.

Yes.

Thurings are connected to the Hermanduri: Hermanduri → Duri (Thuri)+ -ing ("descendant of") → Thuring

There are kind of a dozen theories and this one is to my perception in majority rejected today (I also don’t stick to that.)

There is an interesting female scholar, Heike Grahn-Hoek, that has written much about migration period Thurigia. This subject is stunning foggy. It is believed that at the zenit of it’s power Thurigia ruled (with subdued allied tribes) close to all of Germania magna, i. e. the area outside of the former Roman Empire. It bordered its ally, the Ostrogothic kingdom, at the Danube in today’s Bavaria and it likely reached up to Mecklenburg which was essentially empty at that time (500 AD). The border to the east is completely unknown.

As for the name Grahn-Hoek has developed an own theory (I’m sceptical, but it’s interesting): She thinks it comes from teruingi (Gothic Tervingi) and that name is derived from the Tyras river (today Dnjestr), cf. Tiraspol. The Thuringians were famous for their sophisticated horse breeding and she says this is something that likely teruingi, that also as Eastern Germanics were well into horse breeding, brought. She knows of the diverse origin of the Thuringians, ofc, and she doesn’t equal them with Tervingians but she assumes the latter to have made a key contribution including the name.

But as you said, their origins are referenced as being a mix of the English and Werns. So could the Hermanduri have migrated north and absorbed the English and Werns in Northwest Mecklenburg or Holstein?

No. You can archaelogically see that the movement went from north to south only.

But I don't see why a new Germanic continuum couldn't have formed after the Danes arrived? Scandinavian and Low German remained mutually intelligible dialects for centuries after Danes colonised Jutland, the split between Norse and West Germanic would've happened after the first millennium at the earliest. There's no real geographic barrier between them and plenty of cultural exchange continued taking place through the Hansa and later High German influence in their Lutheran liturgy. North German and Dutch names and cuisine are more similar to Scandinavian ones than to South German and Austrian ones if I'm not mistaken.

The cuisine doesn’t help.

There will have been a continuum but with the Danish expansion a continuum of maybe 400 km was compressed to 1 km figuratively. And at about the same time the contact will have become almost cut off. First (from abt. 500/550 on) all those areas that were later subject to the Slavic expansion were essentially empty of people. And later the Slavs were a barrier. There area, where Saxons and Danes could have a contact in the eastern half of Schleswig was just some 12 km at the most narrow place. The west of Schleswig was swampy wadden sea-like land. This condition went on for centuries before by the German eastward expansion the Slavic barrier became dissoluted.

What do you make of the Hermanduri-Thuringi connection?

Nothing. Those scholars who reject it claim that a review of for what locations the Hermunduri are mentioned, this is just east of the Elbe river and at the Danube so that does not even concern the core territories of lather Thuringia. (I can not quickly check these things.)

As I briefly mentioned above, Thurings were described as living in Hadeln before being overtaken by Saxons.

Have you heard the story? If not, what basically happened was, according to the Thuringian Chronicle, a group of Saxons wearing gold encountered Thurings in Hadeln. A Saxon met with a Thuring and told him he was looking to sell his gold for anything the Thuring agreed to give. So the Thuring was like, "Anything? How about a lap full of soil?" And the Saxon accepted without any hesitation (soil was scarce there). When returning with the gold, the Thurings celebrated and praised their dealer thinking they got the gold for very cheap. And after the Saxon returned with the soil, he started sprinkling soil over the fields with his fellow Saxons and they built forts to claim the land as their own. The Thurings saw this land claim and got angry at the Saxons for violating their pact. Saxons told them that they bought the land fair and square with their gold and the land was now theirs. The Thurings didn't accept this so attacked them and ended up getting defeated. They fought several times until the Saxons destroyed them.

Yes, I know. This is from the Saxon chronicle of Widukind of Corvey. To my conviction this is nonsense. The Thuringians formed with the beginning of the 5th century and Saxons were existent before. In this story they come from the sea and the Lower Saxon coast in Germany is Thuringia figuratively. It doesn’t fit to anything. I consider it a confusion with later battles with the Thuringians as enemies. There are some theories that core Saxons may have come from North Albingia and maybe they landed somewhere and had such inistial hassles before they established. that would fit to land Hadeln. But then they had conflicts with Chauci and that must have been before the existence of tribal Thuringians.

There's another historical narrative about this basically stating that the Thurings under Hermanafrid were fighting the Franks under Theodoric. Theodoric getting desperate told the Saxon chief Hadugot that he would give them land conquered from the Thurings (Hadeln) if he helped them, which he did. In connection to this, Widukind also mentions Saxons fighting Thurings under Hermanafrid in Ronnenberg (near Hannover) in a battle lasting three days that the Saxons won, after which the Thurings fled to the Halle region (which is a modern Thuringian-speaking region). These Thurings were weakened by Franks first since they were fighting the Franks at the same time. This story anyways kind of implies that Engern and Eastfalia at least were previously occupied by Thurings before the Saxons (and Franks) pushed them south of the Hart Mountains.

The first part is still this landing nonsense in Hadeln, at least it’s nonsense in a Thuringian context.

The second part is essentially applicable. It’s about the fights in 531/534 when the Thuringian empire became crushed enduringly. The Frankish chronists don’t state a word about a Saxon participation but after the Saxons got notable parts of the Thüringian Empire, say the eastern 2/3 of later Eastphalia and even some areas south of the Harz, this is very indicative of their participation. And the Saxon chronists do state such a participation. In fact they in turn do not much talk abot the Franks. While the decisive battle is by the Frank told to have been at the Onestrudis (Unstrut) river, the Saxons speak of Runibergun as the battle field and of Scithingi (likely Burgscheidungen in today’s Thuringia). There are a number of possible locations for Runibergun amongst them one in the Hannover area. Others are in Thuringia. It could not be located with confidence till this very day.