The Ancients - The Saxons

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Saxon mercenaries, collapsing Roman order, and a new chapter for Britain. Tristan Hughes is joined by Dr Peter Heather to explore the mysterious Saxon migrations, their Germanic roots, and how they shaped early medieval Britain. A gripping dive into post-Roman chaos and emerging kingdoms.MOREThe Fall of Roman Britainhttps://open.spotify.com/episode/6vMwL1dueziXVNOwloY9xnThe Origins of Londonhttps://open.spotify.com/episode/0vE8PGKJ858AY1bhwd4D0rPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editor is Nick Thomson, the producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.Theme music from Motion Array, all other music from Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here:https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/6FFT7MK

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes and if you would like the ancient ad free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting HistoryHit.com slash subscribe. It's the mid-5th century. Decades have passed since the last Roman field troops had left Britain, symbolising the end of Roman control. Once the most prosperous and protected part of the island, southern Britain is now vulnerable.

Fearsome raiders from present-day Scotland and Ireland threaten these lands. But help is at hand. Southern Britain's new Romano-British leaders – warlords – have sought aid from overseas, and Saxon mercenaries have answered the call. It's The Ancients on History Hit, I'm Tristan Hughes, your host. Today we're exploring the story of the Saxons, one of the most recognisable non-Roman peoples from the late ancient and early medieval periods in Western Europe. Over the course of more than a century, they would rise to become a dominant force in Britain,

ultimately forming famous kingdoms like Wessex and Mercia. But the nature of their arrival into Britain remains highly debated. What do we know about the Saxon migrations into Britain? Did they really start with these mercenary bands coming to the aid of Romano-British warlords and then did they grow into something much bigger? Well, fortunately recent studies have started to shine new light on this intriguing topic, as you're about to find out. Joining me to discuss the Saxon story, from their Germanic origins to their interactions with the Roman Empire to their migrations to Britain, I was delighted to interview Dr

Peter Hever, Professor of Medieval History at King's College London. Now Peter, he is a good friend of the podcast. He's been on the show recently to talk through the barbarian invasions that gripped the Western Roman Empire during the last century of its existence. Now he's back to talk through what we know about the Saxons and their migrations to Britain following Rome's departure. Enjoy. Peter, it is a pleasure to have you back on the podcast. It's an absolute pleasure to be here. Now in the past on The Ancients we've covered in-depth topics on the Vandals, the Goths,

we've done the Franks as well, and it feels like we need to do an episode also on the Saxons. They're another of these big barbarian groups that really rise to the fore at the end of the Western Roman Empire. We'll cover the Saxons in Britain, but first we do need to go back to the origins. I mean, when do we first hear about a group called Saxons in our sources? Toby Sorensen It's very late, actually. Looking back on the 290s, a chronicler writing in the 370s talks about Saxons and Franks causing trouble in the Channel. Some people suggest that's an anachronism. The first absolute contemporary indisputable mention is in the so-called Verona List from 314. I actually think there's nothing wrong with the mention from the 290s, but

it's circa 300. In other words, it's very much a late Roman ethonym. It's not something that appears earlier on. So we don't have it, let's say, at the time of the Basis of the Tudberg Forest or Autacetus when he's labelling all of those different Germanic groups, he doesn't say the Saxons are one of them. No, it is quite striking. Some of these later Roman confederative names like Goths do appear in Tacitus' lists. Obviously, the Goths of the 4th century are very different from the Goths of Tacitus' time, but Saxons aren't mentioned at all. Yeah, it is like an axon airs, but it doesn't actually say Saxons, does it? So it's interesting.

And whereabouts in what is today Germany or mainland Europe, where did the Saxons live? Where were they placed by the Romans? They are in the northern part of Germany. They are immediately behind, as it were, in an eastwards direction. The Franks. So the Franks are on the North Sea, lower Rhine in that kind of region. And the Saxons are their Eastern neighbors. We're talking areas like, well, by the fourth century, we're talking the North Eastern part of the Netherlands. Now we're talking Southern Denmark, we're talking Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany.

Mason-Hill And with the Franks and the Saxons, do we get the sense that they're almost the rivals of each other? Do they have quite a strange relationship? Al-Khalili Yeah, these groups all don't like the Romans, but they don't like each other. The sources are quite unanimous that quite a lot of this kind of Frankish intrusion onto West Roman territory in the fourth century is a knock-on effect from conflict with Saxons. And there's archaeological reflections too of at least spreading Saxon influence westwards. And can we call the Saxons in their original place, can we call them a Germanic people?

Can we say that? We can certainly say that they spoke a Germanic language. That is crystal clear. The Anglo-Saxon language that comes down to us in the British context, or some of the manuscript evidences going back to the late 7th, early 8th centuries and its Germanic character is completely clear. Mason. Do we get a sense, because with so many of these people you get later writers, maybe in the case of the Saxons, Anglo-Saxon writers, when they're talking about the origins of their people, they create mythical stories of where they came from. Is it a similar case with the Saxons? Did they have a mythical origin story too? Well, we don't really know. The Continental Saxons are not literate. I mean, they have runes,

but they're not writing any kind of connected texts. And the first kind of Saxon histories we get date from after the Frankish Carolingian era conquest of Saxony and in fact they tend to be 10th century even. So that's like post Charlemagne and stuff. Yes, it is. It was way late. So, you know, 700 years or 600 years after where we're thinking about in the late Roman period. Do we know why they're called Saxons? It's not totally clear why they're called Saxons. There's a knife that's called a Sax, but there are also hints that there is potentially a God involved here.

Well, one of the early Anglo-Saxon genealogies, royal genealogies, that of the kings of the East Saxons, the Essex boys, goes back to a God called Saxonet, who also appears in one continental North Sea prayer. So what is clear and become more clear from recent finds is that kings of these late Roman groups, and they have multiple kings, they are advocates and followers of particular warrior gods. So I think it's not impossible, though the evidence is limited. I have described it all for you. The Saxons are getting their name because their chosen warrior god cult is actually Saxon. I appreciate it is very difficult to talk about the early Saxons before we get to the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and so on and we'll get to their interactions with the Roman Empire

very quickly. But from the surviving information, let's say from the Romans that you have of other Germanic groups in that area, is it possible at all to piece together a rough idea of Saxon lifestyle, how we should imagine settlements and so on in those lands of what is today northern Germany? The archaeology is in a sense quite clear. They are agriculturalists. They mostly cremate their dead, though there are some groups that bury bodies. They live in clustered villages to some extent, but also rural spread. What is completely unclear is their political organization. And it's unclear because they are not in direct contact with the Roman world. So we know for instance, that the Alemanni who are the southern neighbors of the Franks

on the sort of middle and upper Rhine, that they tend to form a political confederation. You've got a number of separate Kings over different areas within Alemanic territory, but within each political generation, you tend to have an over king. And that's what I think makes the Alemani the Alemani. They are a confederative group who will tend to throw up a recognized over king. Whether that's true of Saxons, I'm sure the multiplicity of kings is true, but whether they had a confederative tendency that made them politically recognizable and distinct like the Alemanni did, there's no way of knowing that actually. And in regards to religion, is their religion what we would call Germanic paganism? Certainly, but the crucial point about that is that that is on the move and that's become very clear. So for instance, these different Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, most of them

trace the descent from Woden, not from Saxena. And it's clear that Woden was not a dominant figure in the early Roman period. But what has just been found is a beautiful fifth century gold bracteate where a king in Jutland describes himself as Woden's man. So I think Woden is genuinely one of these war gods. In other words, we've got competing warrior cults, Saxonet possibly, Woden certainly, but they're all new. And the nature of leadership in the Germanic world has changed since the time of Tastis. Wonderful work by an old friend of mine, sadly passed away, called Dennis Green showed that the words for leadership in the Germanic world change over the Roman period.

They change from meaning things like leader of the people, that kind of stuff, to different words for military leadership. So there's a series of them in different Germanic languages by the later period, but they all mean war leader, every single one. So leadership has become much more militarized. I think this is why war god cults are so important. This is a brutal and competitive world and getting the right war god on your side is really important.

Let's explore their interactions with the Roman Empire. If you've highlighted with their position that they don't directly neighbour the Roman Empire. How did the Romans portray them? Are they more as conflict people rather than a trading people, almost a trading partner? Certainly so. In those fourth century sources, we meet Saxons in two guises, either raiding along the Channel region or as destabilising and disturbing Rome's immediate Frankish neighbours. So in both contexts it's very much one of hostility. Mason And you mentioned the channel there, so that's not just southern Britain, that's also northern France. So do we get the sense that the Saxons,

they're not marching their armies through Frankish lands and attacking the border area of the Roman Empire? They're getting on their ships, they're almost circumnavigating that and then they're attacking more heartland areas of the Roman provinces. Yes, that's exactly the pattern that's suggested. If you look at what the North Sea coast was like and the channel coast fringes in the late Roman period, you can basically work your way down it, hidden or safe from the open sea. Sacks and boats don't have sails. They are rowing. They are rowing from Jutland to the Channel. This is what we're talking about. And these expeditions must have taken several months and they're not, you know, fast moving hit and run raids. We're not quite in Viking territory, but certainly there are as many Saxon intrusions noted in northern Gaul, northern France on the south side of the channel as there are in the north, yes.

Do we know how the Romans attempted to fend off, to appease this threat, to try and counter this Saxon sea threat. That's deeply contentious. You'll be pleased to know. There's a chain of fortifications along the south coast of Britain running from kind of Norfolk round to the Solent, which are commonly called the Saxon shore forts, the Bitus Saxonum. And one idea is that this is all huge structures to fend off a massive Saxon threat that they're all they're dated to about 300 AD. But actually, that's probably they come to maximum capacity when the British usurper Kerausius is trying to defend himself from the continent. However, and some people argue from that there's no Saxon threat in 300. And the only the dated mention of a command,

a commander of the Saxon shore is only in the Notitia dignitatum from the late fourth century from 395. There's no mention of anyone earlier than that called the Count of the Saxon Shore. And I think that's correct. I think the Count of the Saxon Shore is created in 395 because by Stilicho, when he comes to power in the Western Empire, his chief propagandist, a poet called Claudian, mentions him having done something to protect Britain from the Saxons. And I think the two things tie up. I'm sure that's correct. However, while most of those forts were built to fend off Diocletian's attack on Carusius, about half a dozen of them stay in service subsequently. So I think even

though there's not a count of the Saxon shore in the fourth century. There is a military command with quite a lot of troops available that is directly responding to seaborne Saxon threat. And you've got to think about that threat. They're rowing. They don't just come and then leave. They come. They have to rest up.

They have to raid. And then they leave. Trying to find these Saxons at sea, that's a small boats problem in spades, but they're on land at least for several days. So actually a well-placed series of local garrison infantry and cavalry forces is a perfectly good response to that potential level of threat.

So to my mind, there are others who don't think this. There are some who think that the threat only built up from about 360. I think the evidence is good enough to suggest that from the two nineties onwards, we're seeing small boatloads of Saxons turn up periodically and that the Romans had to counter it. And it is said quite specifically, the carousel is given quite a lot of money to build defenses against raiding in the channel. And it's this money that he uses then to mount his user patient. So there's something going on in the channel. And if it's not Franks and Saxons, it's both of them are mentioned, then

who is it? Mason, Yeah, exactly. It seems to be very likely, very possible. Larson, No, I think it is. Mason, And do we hear from the Roman sources if the Saxons are engaging in this activity, any particular raids by the Saxons on Roman territory that are particularly infamous in Roman eyes? Larson, Well, certainly the 360s looks as though it was a step change. There's a thing called, our contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus calls the barbarian conspiracy.

CB You just can't trust these barbarians. They're always going to conspire if you take your eyes off them for a moment. And that's a simultaneous attack by Picts and Scots, Scots, of course the Irish. So we've got raiding on the West coast of Roman Britain from Ireland. We've got Picts maybe also coming by boat rather than just going around Hadrian's Walkway or something like that. Yeah, because there are watchtowers that are refurbished in the fourth century on the Yorkshire coast. And I doubt that the Saxons are rowing all the way up to Yorkshire. And that would be a cunning plan in spits. So, you know, it's usually argued that these are the pits. And I think that's

entirely plausible that it's so at that same time time, that exact same moment in the 360s, we then also get Saxons attacking in the South. There's been an attempt to say that that's not so, but the sort of majority opinion is now quite clear that what Amir Alna seems to be saying is what he actually said, that we had Saxon raiding at that point in the mid-360s and two British military commanders are killed. One who seems to have been the garrison commander in and around Hadrian's wall, but then also someone else who's called the Count of the Maritime Tract is killed. And I suspect that that is the ancestral command position for the Count of the Saxon

shaw. I think what Stilago is doing is saying, I've completely changed everything. He's renamed in the, we've never seen any political action like that, of course, ever. So if we now go on to the early fifth century and this turbulent period in the Western Roman Empire, particularly around 408. I mean, what happens in 408 and how does this event around the Rhine, how does it probably affect the Saxons? It looks as though, and you know, the sources are really rubbish. It's very important to understand. What's really frustrating is there was a wonderful account of this written by an East Roman ambassador, a man called Olympiodorus, who knew everything,

wrote everything down, but it only survives in fragments. Sam. Yes. So there are hints and two different people used him, Zosimus and Sosamun. And then there are independent fragments that survive in a very brief summary. And the trouble is that Zosimus certainly at least confused a few things as well. So this makes it quite tricky to know exactly what happens. But the broad outline would seem to be that in response to the Rhine invasion and of the Vandals, Alans and Swerves. That's what happens in 408, they cross the Rhine invasion of the Vandals, Alans and Swayves.

That's what happens in 408. They cross the Rhine. Yeah, well, in 406. 406, yeah. And Stilicho is unable to deal with that. That a local British military commander, well, a series of them, but it ends up being Constantine. He's the third and the one that doesn't get killed by the soldiers.

He takes the field army troops from southern Britain, unites them with the field army troops, regional field army troops on the Rhine and creates a user patient and sells himself as the man who's going to deal with the vandal threat. So he takes these troops off. And as far as we can see, they never come back. In the military listing from the early four twenties, there is a field army count of Britain, but it's not clear whether he's in Britain because by that date, a fleet that used to be on the Solent is now stationed in Paris. It's called the Pevensey fleet, but it's in Paris. So the thought is that the key elements of the Roman military in southern Britain are

taken to the continent and never come back. The Hadrian's War units are probably still there. But what this effectively does is remove the umbrella of central Roman military protection from southern Britain. Whether that happens immediately in 408, whether it's confirmed by Flavius Constantius when he restores order in the Western Empire and says, no, we're not going to protect Britain, that is the level of detail we don't know, which I think Olympiadors probably would have told us if we had it, but we don't have it.

Do you think that triggers a Saxon response, or do they have their own threats on the continent and then they decide that Britain's their next best place? What does the removal of Roman troops from southern Britain do for the Saxons? Well, the only narrative that we've got is by the British cleric, Gildas. The story as told by Gildas, and he's writing in the 6th, looking back to the fifth century, is that the removal of the protection leaves Britain open to attacks from Picts and Scots, so from Scotland and Ireland. And that the local, I guess,

villa-owning sub-Romano British who retain their culture and their identity for a generation or two have to take measures for their defence, one of which is calling in Saxon military auxiliaries. Those auxiliaries, first of all, beat off Picts and Scots, then decide that actually they can take the place over for themselves, call in their friends. There we go. LARSON Do we think this is Nike? It sounds like the

nature of these Saxon movements into Britain at that time following the Roman soldiers leaving. Is it groups of warbands coming over, as you say, to fight as mercenaries in military service, or should we actually be imagining a series of migrations where the Saxons were also bringing their women and children too? I suspect that we've got everything going on. What I think is certainly true is that we're looking at large numbers of small groups of different kinds. The Gildas story is partly mythicised, I think, but also broadly plausible. We see that kind of thing happening, but that doesn't mean given the backstory that we've seen in the fourth century of Saxon raiding along the Channel Coast, that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been autonomous Saxon raiding as well as the allied groups being hired in for mercenary service by the sub Romano Brits as well. So I would have thought

all these things are going on. I mean, basically the obstacles to effective raiding along the channel had been removed by the disappearance. And I should say that those Saxon shore forts, the archaeological evidence for the maintenance and usage runs out in the early fifth century. That's kind of further confirmation that the troops taken by Constantine III never came back. So the channel shore has been opened up for raiding. So I think that is happening. But also I think the employment of mercenaries is perfectly plausible too. The extent to which they're bringing women and children? Well, that's a very different migration movements to other peoples we've explored

in the past, let's say the Goths, when they're forced to move because of the Hunnic threat. You also have the Vandals and the Allans and they're moving and I know it's a bit contentious, are they just warriors or is it their whole families that are moving there as well? It seems like with the Saxons, it's not an unprecedented number of these people arriving in Britain, unlike it was with the Goths and the Vandals in those parts of the Roman Empire. They are small groups, but those groups keep coming over a prolonged period of time. Yes. That, I think, is exactly the right image to have in your head. The other way of putting

it is a different way of saying the same thing, is actually Saxon migration into Britain is in effect not a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, you might say. The Roman Empire has fallen in Britain in the sense that the imperial center has abandoned the provincial population. And that's what makes it possible for very small group migration, multiple small group migration to happen. You try that, you know, if the Goths had tried multiple small group migration across the Danube, they get smashed. It's because there

isn't effective Roman military counteraction available within Britain that this kind of small group thing can happen. The overall balance between men and women and children, that is really interesting question. You've got two kind of data sets because the narratives are rubbish. You've got to kind of data sets because the narratives are rubbish. They don't work. So you've got to approach this problem laterally and come at it from a different direction. One thing is the language replacement of the mix of Celtic and Latin by Anglo-Saxon or Old English, as we should call it, which is undoubtedly a Germanic language. And the point here is, of course, there are no Scots. So children learn language, particularly at home and particularly from their mothers. It's really hard to imagine how Anglo-Saxon would

become the language, at least of the early medieval elite, as it emerges in post-Roman Britain, at least of the early medieval elite as it emerges in post-Roman Britain, if there are not plenty of female speakers of Germanic. So in other words, we've got to have Anglo-Saxon women as well. That's one data set that's already there and the dominance of Germanic language amongst the new elite of post-Roman Britain is quite clear. The new data set that's slowly emerging is generated by the capacity now to extract DNA from ancient bones. Can't do it from cremations. Has to be inhumations. And do we have that evidence surviving? Do you have burials from the fifth century of Saxons in Britain?

We do. Wow. There's quite a lot of it. But the numbers that have been tested so far are quite small. The real issue, and this is the sort of thing that's fought over, is the extent to which the dramatic cultural change, which is evident in Britain, says switch. Villas disappear. Latin disappears.

The sort of civilian bureaucratic elite is replaced by military aristocracy. All of that everyone agrees about. What is disagreed about is the extent to which this new elite that we meet in the pages of Bede from whose memory goes back to about, well, it goes back really to the arrival of the Roman mission in 597. B knows damn well about the fifth and earlier sixth centuries. He basically copies out Gildas. He doesn't, it's so striking to me that his historical memory and the memory of the people he grew up around doesn't stretch back into that period.

So he relies on Gildas for that. And it's only from the time, the last decade of the sixth century onwards, that he's telling you stories about kings and things that are totally independent of that. Anyway, we're clear of the cultural change. The contentious issue is the extent to which that cultural change is driven by the arrival of Saxons. In other words, do Saxons predominate in the early medieval elite that we meet in the

pages of Bede and in various other stories and that visible archeologically? And it's that question that the DNA will, I think, eventually shed a lot of light on. So, you know, I'm notoriously a migrationist. I think that the Anglo-Saxon takeover is a bit like the Norman conquest, but only bigger. So in the Norman conquest, we know that the massive peasants just stay where they are,

but about 2000 Norman families replaced three and a half thousand Anglo-Saxon families as the dominant land ending elite. I think the Anglo-Saxon takeover was like that, but there are more Anglo-Saxons as it were. But the alternative point of view is that a lot of sub-Romano Brits, as it were, buy into Anglo-Saxon culture. So they look like Anglo-Saxons, but they are actually natives. You don't take away the importance of migration if you do that, but you do reduce the numbers. The DNA will eventually address that point. So far, I think we've got one cemetery,

but it's very interesting. It's from Buckland, which is a suburban parish in Dover, and you've got a cemetery there, and the DNA, it's something like 100 burials. Sorry, I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head. You get the DNA from the small bones inside the ear. That's where it's preserved

best. When I first started being interested in this, the DNA people were saying, no, you won't get any DNA out of bones in North European conditions. It's too wet and it's too cold. Well, actually you can. So it's really interesting. We didn't think we were going to have this data set. But anyway, the Buckland Cemetery and the people buried with all the Anglo-Saxon gear of jewelry and weapons and all the rest of it. Most of the people you can trace familial relations, they're very close together through the DNA, very precise ones. But it looks like they are mostly descended from immigrants who've arrived from Northern continental Europe, i.e. Saxon areas, recently. There is one family which has entirely local Roman British DNA, looks exactly the same.

I mean, that's one cemetery. There are hundreds of cemeteries. My gut instinct is that that's probably going to be about right. In other words, that a small number of the old Roman British elite make it into the new Anglo-Saxon elite, but most of it is actually immigrant. That's exactly the pattern from the Norman Conquest, for instance, where I think by Doomsday Book there are two Saxon landowners left. Just slight tangents before we kind of continue on this. You also mentioned, of course, the famous words Anglo-Saxon. So what's the Anglo part of that as well? Is this the Angles who also live in that area of northern Germany? Yes, these are the Angles traditionally associated with Anghelm. The Anglian kingdoms of England, the people who call themselves

Angles are East Angles, of course, probably the Northumbrian, two separate kingdoms, Banisha de Ira, to start with, Middle Angles. Their royal genealogies trace their name from Woden, interestingly. That's very striking. It's interesting, as the fifth century goes on, and maybe as a hypothesis, if we take Gildas's account that these early Saxon arrivals, they're in small groups and they're coming almost as mercenaries to fill the void of the Roman soldiers have gone. But could it be then, as time goes on, word reaches back to Saxon heartlands that actually Britain is a nice place and there's opportunity now there. So maybe the size and scale of the

migrations increases over the course of that century and you get the families then moving across. I guess it's no surprise that the Southeast of England is one of the biggest areas for it as well, given the proximity of it compared to other areas of Britain. And that ultimately in a way, I mean, catalyzes might be the wrong word, but almost like a snowball as it's building up and up and up. Maybe as the decades go on in the fifth century, more and more Saxons are coming across when they hear of the opportunities and it's no longer just soldiers, it's also women and children too. I think that that's entirely likely and that's kind of the model that I have in my head.

I think there are some crunch moments. So the continental Roman chronicles in the fifth century tell us that the manure hits the air conditioning in Britain in about 440. Right. And it seems to me that might be Gildas' mercenary revolt moment there or there about. So there's a Saxon mercenary of revolt in Gildas' account. Yes. And they encourage other people to come over. They get fed up with just receiving the interest on the real estate through tax payments to decide they'd like to control the real estate for themselves. But Gildas' story is not one of final defeat, because in Gildas you have this kind of potential Arthur figure, Aurelius Ambrosius, who leads

a British counterattack. And he's successful. He wins this victory at Mount Badon, wherever the hell that is. Brozies already are in this country. Yes, absolutely. Where the hell is that? People would give their eye teeth and that. But anyway, it doesn't say that the Saxons are wiped out, but it's certainly suggesting that Saxon intrusion is contained. And if you run the chronology and sinks at 440s, the mercenary revolt, that's around 500 would have to be certainly there

or thereabouts, yet swing forward 100 years to when beads starts up and Anglo-Saxons have taken over all of Northern England, everywhere to the Welsh border and are right on the fringes of Devon. I mean, they've got Somerset. So another big moment of expansion has happened between the victory that Gildas records, circa 500 by the Brits and the situation that we have very well documented for us by Bede. So the Saxons keep coming back and I know that's-

I think they do, yes. And the conditions on the other side of the North Sea, I mean, there is marine intrusion, that's been documented. There might be negative push factors as well, but I certainly think that a flow of increasing momentum is extremely likely. And it will be small groups. I mean, the Sutton Hoo ship didn't have a mast, doesn't have sails. It's a rowing boat. There's no sign of sails amongst being used by these populations until the Viking period in the eighth and ninth centuries. So they are rowing. Bigger rowing boats, smaller rowing boats, but they're rowing. It's not impossible that they could have hired ships with sales from the sort of more Roman parts. And I wouldn't put that out. You know, the Goths, when they raid across

the Black Sea in the third century, hire ships and sailors from the old Greek cities of the Black Sea coast. So you couldn't rule that out and it might be possible to put together larger migration groups on that basis. But as far as we know, at least, we're talking about migration groups that are being carried by rowing boats. If you have that Ambrosius Aurelianus story in the Basis of Mount Badon around 500, is it in the century afterwards that always the balance of power seems to shift from Romano-British to Germanic Saxon culture in southern Britain and a bit beyond that? Yes, I think so. That is what it suggests to me. The trouble is, Gildas doesn't give us any specific geographical pointers as to where Aureus Ambrosius manages to restore British control to. The Act of Saxon Chronicle is pretty rubbish. I mean, there are some things that are very clear.

So it records a battle in the late fifth century at Durham. I've been rear ended actually, just outside Durham Park. I know exactly where that is. It's on a huge ridge just north of Bath. And if you stand on that ridge, you see the whole of the Bristol plain in front of you. It's pretty clear that's the moment when the British lose control of Somerset and a push back towards Devon, you know, further away. The Saxons extend their control out of these highlands and down into that Bristol plain. You can see that, but whether it took place in the date that it's supposed to have taken place, Neon Saxon Chronicles seems to me extremely doubtful.

Do we have any idea whether they force their culture on everyday people as in those areas? You mentioned earlier how maybe the elites actually buy into the Germanic culture of the Saxons if they see the tide turning. Do you have any idea whether they then force Germanic culture on the people beneath them or is that still just a bit unclear in this difficult time? It's a bit unclear. I think you can see some patterns. For instance, early medieval England is full of unfree people. So you have an unfree peasant labouring class who are not part of the political structures. I would have thought these must be the descendants of the Romano

British peasant agriculturalists. I mean, the thing we know now, which Victorians didn't know is that the late Roman countryside of the fourth century is absolutely full of people. The estimates of populations for Britain in the fourth century, put it up at the 4 million level, it's not going to get that high again until the eve of the black death. And many of them are still living in their farmsteads, iron age roundhouses kind of thing, aren't they? Absolutely. I would have thought it's extremely likely the sort of serf, tenant,

peasant class is just there. This is why what happens to the Roman British elite is so important because they're the people who are interacting more directly with the Saxon intruders. So it's kind of competition, cultural competition between them and the Anglo-Saxon intruders. Those relations won't have been hostile everywhere.

They don't preclude some of the old Romano-Brisian elite making its way into the new elite. I mean, that one line in the Dover Cemetery, absolutely clear. We've got a local person who made it in. There's interestingly in the Wessex Royal genealogy, there's one figure with a Celtic name. So who is he and what is going on there? And then the late

seventh century law code of Aina, who is King of Wessex in the 690s, does recognise that there are British landowners within the Wessex kingdom, but it gives them only half the social value of their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. In other words, as one colleague has put it, there's a kind of apartheid culture going on there and having this lower social value would tend to lead to your diminution. The Romans viewed outsiders as barbarians. You know, the Saxons see themselves, they've almost embraced that and they see Romano-British peasants as barbarians in their eyes kind of.

Yes. So I think there will have been a lot of local alliances, but they are unequal alliances and I think the end result would be that only a relatively small number of the old Romano-Brisjoli would really make it into full acceptance in the sort of early medieval Anglo-Saxon world. CB I was going to ask maybe if there was potential examples of ethnic cleansing, or I mean, it was horrific as it is, or if there is evidently, at times, strong resistance to the Saxons. We mentioned Mount Badon especially, that presumably there is some hatred between the two groups

at least for a period of time. Yeah, you're fighting an existential struggle for control of the real estate, very nice real estate of central and southern England on this kind of agricultural, good agricultural land. A bit wet. We won't go too far into the medieval period because we'll be stepping too much on gone medieval's toes, but is it once that balance of power has shifted and the Saxons are very much amongst the elite, or the Romano-British survivors have bought into the Saxon ideas, is it not long after that, by the time we get to Bede, that you then see that grow out into the Anglo-Saxon

kingdoms that we know so well for the early Middle Ages in Britain today? Yes, and that's an important point, which we probably should have mentioned, Ilyam. One thing that really confirms that we're dealing with a flow of increasing momentum rather than big moves is the political structure that we see in the pages of Bede when it emerges. Because actually it's very fluid and it continues to be fluid. You know, Victorians talked about the seven kingdoms, the Heptarchy. Well, no, because the political process keeps on going. So Kent, which is the dominant area in 597, that's why the mission goes to Kent. The King of Kent has a Frankish wife. I'm sure that's part of the diplomatic negotiation, the backstory to why Augustine and his band of brothers

turn up in Kent. But Kent gets swallowed up by Mercia and becomes dominated by Mercia. In fact, in the early 8th century, the Kentish royal line is actually extinguished. We're actually seeing a process, a sort of Darwinian process of competition. We know of other kingdoms that are disappeared. So the Huiche around Worcester, we have got a lot of early charters from them. They run their own territory and then the Mercians take them over and the Wichita royal dynasty is demoted to being kind of aristocrats within the Mercian, broader Mercian hegemony. Quite how many originally independent kingdoms, princedoms, I mean, there were, that's very contested. There's an interesting document called the Tribal Hidage. Only dates from post conquest manuscripts, so there's nothing early. But on the other hand, it preserves a lot of strange political looking names,

like Kwitche and whatever, and it gives them all a kind of value allocation. Hydrids is a unit of value, not a unit of size. So a Hyde of good land is smaller than a Hyde of bad land. But within this, there are about 40 different names with these all originally independent principles. Not impossible, it's much contested in the literature. Mason It's interesting to think of actually early on and we don't have enough information at the moment, but maybe it started with much smaller Saxon kingdoms or the Saxons take over these small warlord areas that emerge following the departure of Rome and then ultimately they do coalesce into the larger kingdoms that we're more familiar with.

Toby That's got to be broadly it. It's got to be something like that, but it's just how many and how small. I mean, I think you probably could turn up with three boatloads. I mean, the fourth century Needham ship or the Sutton Hoo ship, that'd be about 30 men a boat. You turn up with a warband of 30, well, three lots of 30, so a hundred men and carve out a little Princeton. Landon Chichester just say, I'm taking this for myself. Yeah. And then grow from there. This has been really really interesting. I can only ask a couple more questions

But I will ask one quickly because you mentioned st. Augustine The Saxons we mentioned the four Germanic paganism, but as they migrate more more of them migrate to Britain do we know much about their conversion to Christianity? You know a lot about it. I mean, you know far more about the conversion of the Saxon thing than most other conversions because Bede provides such a narrative of it. It's a partial view. I mean, what Bede tells us is a story of conversion of kings and elites, a top-down process. But that is, of course, fascinating because these are warrior aristocrats and you've got to ask,

you know, how does Christianity work for them? You know, there's no turn the other cheek possible in the Anglo-Saxon world. They'll love your enemies. They're engaged in martial competition against each other and against what remains of British kingdoms further west, we're having to recreate Christianity, redefine it in order to make it work for any medieval warriors. And that kind of story starts to emerge from some of the sources that survive for us. You can almost imagine with certain Romano British elites, if they bought into Saxon customs when they arrive, if they were originally Christian, then maybe they convert to whatever the religion that the Saxons bring across, and then they convert back to Christianity when that goes the other way.

Toby So, absolutely. That might well be going on. The interesting thing is we're told that the missionaries sell the idea of Christian conversion on the backs of the great glory of Christian civilization. Well, of course, that doesn't work in a British context because the Anglo-Saxons have spent 200 years beating the crap out of this. Christian Brits, what's impressive is the Frankish Christian world, south of the Channel. This is where we have Merovingian kings in their absolute glory and their prime. Kent's relationships with the Frankish world are very close. This is why Ethelbert of Kent has a Frankish wife and a Frankish princess as a wife. That's the conduit or that's the trajectory from which Christianity looks impressive,

not from the Romano-British side. Toby Hildesbury And that's another important point to highlight, isn't it, that the Saxons, when they reach Britain, they're not then isolated on the island. They still retain those contacts to the mainland of Europe. But I'm glad you mentioned the Franks there because my last question is actually about the Saxons who don't migrate to Britain. Do you have any idea what happens to the Saxons on the continent? Yeah, the continental Saxons become predominant in what's now southern Scandinavia, i.e. Jutland and the islands and the areas

immediate around it. One of the things that's emerged from all the new DNA work is that whereas DNA from Denmark in the early Roman period looks like DNA that you find in Norway and Sweden, there's actually a large intrusion of continental North European DNA into Jutland in the late Roman period. So that looks like Saxon expansion into the Scandinavian world there. And certainly by the time that we get detailed Frankish sources, the Saxons are important, dangerous, occasionally subordinated neighbours to the northeast of the Franks. What will eventually happen, of course, in bloody campaigns that last over 30 years, is that Charlemagne will subdue the continental Saxons and make them part of the Frankish Empire. But that's still a long way in the future.

Long way in the future and out of our time period I'm afraid. But Peter this has been absolutely fantastic. It just goes me to say thank you so much for taking the time to come back on the show. It's my pleasure and you should revisit it when there's been a lot more DNA work. Well there you go. There was Professor Peter Heather shining a light on the Saxons. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Now the Saxons was the winner of a poll we released on Spotify a few weeks ago for which post-Roman Kingdom you wanted us to explore next. And don't you worry, we'll be doing

more polls in the future so keep an eye out for those. In the meantime, thank you for listening to this episode of The Ancients. Please follow this show on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, it really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favour. If you leave us a rating as well, we'd really appreciate that. Don't forget, you can also listen to us and all of HistoryHits podcasts ad free, and watch hundreds of TV documentaries when you subscribe at historyhit.com slash subscribe.