How was the relationship between the native Britons and the Anglo

I'm not too sure about this. I'm blatantly guessing that it was an uneasy assimilation effort between the two.

>>1433033
From what I understand a load of Anglo Saxons just moved to England, fought with the natives a bit then any remaining natives assimilated.

Enslaving Welsh people was much more an Irish enterprise.

They likely killed the men and raped the women

File: 12509629_1066144850073888_7614771633905502585_n.jpg (49KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x960px

watch out, the Politically correct celtic internet defence force will come out.
The blonde/red haired (celts aren't redhaired) anglo saxons replaced almost all of northern England with anglo saxon ethnicty, around 60/40 the midlands and southeast england, and most of west england is mostly celtic. cumbria is mostly anglo saxon though.
there was no "muh genocide of celts", there was a huge plague in england and most of the land was unpopulated. the pagan anglo saxons disliked romans and civilisation, and disliked christianity, and the romano brits were trying to be romans and becoming christian, so the anglo saxons rightfully invaded, because they also got betrayed by the romano brits.

Invited by the Romans probably to fight the Irish and Scots

Once WRE collapsed the AngloSaxons just assumed command

Local Britons adopt the culture of Germanics

>>1435516
Modern Brits even in the most heavy AS areas are still 60% non AS

>>1433033
Nope. Saxons had already lived in much of coastal England for a century or more before the revolt that led to their conquest of lowland Britain. The Britons culturally assimilated over the centuries because the Saxons were higher-prestige. As Romanisation had been fairly minimal in Britannia compared to other provinces and Latin wasn't widespread Anglo-Saxon culture fairly quickly replaced local Briton culture across much of the region. That being said St Albans seems to have remained strongly Brythonic retaining a Latin language for centuries after it was conquered.

The English Settlements by Myres is a good book on the subject.

>>1433033
They just lived next to each other for more than 1000 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/britons-still-live-in-anglo-saxon-tribal-kingdoms-oxford-univers/

File: 1461608232272.png (113KB, 695x820px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 695x820px

>>1435516
We wuz gud kangz dindu nuffin

>>1435516
You aren't that anon from this thread?
>>1435537

>>1435516
why is northern england the stupidest part of england then?

>>1435893
Because that's where the beady eyed anglos lives. Didn't you read what he said?

>>1435912
and posh saxons lived southeast

>>1435516
>(celts aren't redhaired)

so why is the incidence of red hair higher in ireland, wales and scotland then in england?

>>1435516
Is it just me or do primitiavists generally believe in genetic theories that lack support anywhere else?
Pretty sure Varg vikerners denies the IE invasion and some other things supported by genetic studies just to name one.

>>1435893
Don't be fucking stupid. The North is deprived for a few reasons, the oldest of which is the Harrowing of the North, and the latest the chronic underfunding there from central government.

The North of England was producing illuminated manuscripts of world class before the South had much of anything.

>>1435949
> one guy's opinion
Yeah. The IE 'invasion' did happen, but we are not sure whether it involved an actual movement of peoples, or simply of ideas.

File: 1467330032626.png (260KB, 1180x987px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1180x987px

>>1435972
Don't the genetic studies support the theory of an IE invasion of peoples? Or have I misunderstood those studies?