What were the cultural differences between Anglo-Saxons

Maybe not the perfect example, but watch "The Last Kingdom" for a broad idea

>>1658381
The Anglo-Saxons were eternally depressed Christians.

The Vikings were moderately less depressed, and often not Christian.

>>1658381
Before the Anglo Saxons adopted Christianity, no real difference except the gods are names slightly differently.
After Christianity, still very similar but the English called the Norse dirty pagans a lot.
They fought in the same manner and used the same weapons and armour.

Anglo-Saxon are Germanic.

Vikings are Scandinavian.

>>1658943
Scandinavians are also Germanic

>>1658943
Wow

>>1658961
>>1658982
Ok then Vikings are Northmen, and came from what is now Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Angles and Saxons came from what is now modern Germany.

>>1659005
They're the same

>>1659005
>Angles and Saxons came from what is now modern Germany.

No, Angles are from Denmark, and Saxons are from Denmark

>>1659008
I didnt even read the question properly, i thought he asked what the difference was not the cultural difference.

>>1658381
The Celts who converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity taught them how to read and write which the Vikings didn't know how to do.

>>1659005
You are so dumb I can't even believe it so maybe you're a troll but either way you're wrong because the Angles and Jutes came from Jutland in Denmark.

File: Map.png (2MB, 1778x632px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1778x632px

>>1659016
Looks like Germany to me.

>>1659026
not to me

>>1659036
Granted the Angles is half in Germany and Half in Denmark. But the Saxons are solidly in Germany.

>>1659036
Saxons were a german tribe

>>1659045
*Germanic.

'Germans' didn't exist until much, much later.

>>1659053
Denmark was founded in the 8th century.

Anglos and Saxons migrated to Britain in the 5th century.

So they are not Danes by your logic.

>>1659062
In what is now Denmark. If you said Germany you might think Angles came from Bavaria or some shit.

>>1659076
No Saxons came from Germany, Angels came from bordering of the two countries.

>>1658381
the tv show Vikings, is a good example of the differences in season 2 and 3

>>1659125
>using TV shows for history

I bet you think you're studying when you watch a documentary

>>1659094

Can we please stop race memeing? Even hundreds of years after the migration of many of these tribes to England, the language barrier between Old Norse and Old English were very, very thin. Old English was actually referred to by many Germanic peoples, both Northern and Western, as "the language we can all understand." This cultural sharing is why one of the greatest works of English literature takes place in modern day Scandinavia, you fuckwits.

>>1659125
>le big strong painted pagans taking on le weak cowardly Christians.

Ugh. The amount of praise this show gets for being historically accurate gives me cancer. They definitely knew their target audience, I guess.

>>1659167
Its far from accurate but it is fun.

Even without going into the stupid costume design the whole plot is and characters are inaccurate.

Bjorn was not born to Lagetha.
Rollo was not Ragnars relative, and came many centuries later.
People didnt wear leather vests all the time.

>>1658381
the similarities are probably one reason the Norse were able to successfully invade and rule England for a period, something they had a harder time doing in Ireland and Wales.

>>1659043
"Germany" at this time was just the area around the Alps.

>>1658381
"Anglo-Saxons", they are from the Netherlands.

>>1659167
To be fair, the Christians are really kicking it up a notch these last couple of seasons. King Ecbert is a GOAT character.

>>1659182
Not to mention the century-long time gap between Lindisfarne and most of the show's events. Though the costume design is fuck awful. 15th century Burgonets on 8th-9th century Saxons? Fucking really?

>>1659300
They were even more successful in Ireland, but I guess you wouldn't notice it because it doesn't fit your narrative, right?

>>1660174
How so? All they did was rule a few coastal cities in Ireland.

The North of England was wholesale colonized by vikings and there were several Norse kings of England.

very little at first

all folks coming out of the Common Germanic age held high degrees of similarity, from a higher degree of mutual intelligibility in language (think i read somewhere that Old Norse and Old English were similar to how Spanish and French are to one another today) to worshiping the same gods and similar writing systems.

as time went on, Anglo-Saxons took on more Latin influence, adopting the Latin script over their runic one and replacing their germanic pantheon with Christianity.

so to begin with, in the viking age there were some notable differences. in the ages before that they were very, very, close.

>>1658381
When?

File: REEEEEEE.png (478KB, 500x572px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 500x572px

>>1662128
Latin was the only "script" in the true sense of that word. Futhark would more accurately be described as "carvings" or perhaps "scrawlings."

File: 1444988850863.jpg (147KB, 520x676px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 520x676px

>>1662128
>>1662259
However it is worthy to note that the monks DID invent their own unique Northern Script:

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

>>1659005
>Angles and Saxons came from what is now modern Germany.
no, angles and saxons came from jutland which is mostly modern day denmark. some saxons came from northern germany and netherlands but jutes and angles came predominately from denmark, some even from southern scandinavia.

>>1662259
>Latin was the only "script" in the true sense of that word. Futhark would more accurately be described as "carvings" or perhaps "scrawlings."
i dont understand. whole sentences could be made in runic script.

>>1662280
>Runes (Proto-Norse: ᚱᚢᚾᛟ (runo), Old Norse: rún) are the letters in a set of related alphabets known as runic alphabets, which were used to write various Germanic languages before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialised purposes thereafter. The Scandinavian variants are also known as futhark or fuþark (derived from their first six letters of the alphabet: F, U, Þ, A, R, and K); the Anglo-Saxon variant is futhorc or fuþorc (due to sound changes undergone in Old English by the names of those six letters).
see, alphabets

File: 800px-LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg (303KB, 800x1136px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 800x1136px

>>1662745
"Script" connotes books and paper writing which were technology that the Norsemen didn't have.

100% of the archaeological examples of Futhark are carvings.

>>1662800
>"Script" connotes books and paper writing
no it doesn't

File: bagan spurdo.png (132KB, 679x578px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 679x578px

>>1662817
>late 14c., "something written," earlier scrite (c. 1300), from Old French escrit "piece of writing, written paper;

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=script

>>1662829
>piece of writing,

File: Hide Snowniggers.png (115KB, 1305x893px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1305x893px

>>1662837
>written paper

>>1662829
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/script#English

>(linguistics) A system of writing adapted to a particular language or set of languages.

>>1662840
yeah, because that word's etymological root is with people who wrote on paper instead of wood or birchbark.

File: 1473092430144.png (39KB, 379x430px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 379x430px

>>1662862
Yes the word "script" does indeed connote paper writing and that's what I've been arguing for from the beginning.

>>1662800

>>1662800
No it in this context.

Learn some basic linguistics dip shit.

>>1662893
it means writing. but it means also written [paper] because paper was the basic thing you wrote things on to.

>>1662942
source: your butt hole

>>1662942
this.

>>1662942(You)
>>1662955(You)

>>1662951
Where's your source for this post?

>>1663020
ur mum

>>1663025
well, you're a tough guy

>Germanic tribes who liked sailing and farming

Not really

File: Romanobritish.jpg (91KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 320x480px

>>1658381
Nothing. They were both barbarian thieves who stole Britain from its true people.

>>1664049
i wouldn't even consider the "viking age" to be a separate thing. it was simply the last of the great barbarian invasions.

>>1664049
Found the Welshman
Stay mad