• Did we kill, rape and pillage? Oh yes

    Sure we did cruel and horrendous things!

    When, in the 16th. Hundred I wanted, not just my own country, but your country as well, then it was common practice, to raise an army, of brutal and cruel men, and invade your country and take it from you.

    For a quick war, that give lasting results, you cannot beat a good, old fashioned genocide: That usually meant, fighting against, and killing all of male inhabitants and old women. Raping all the young women. Torturing your proud, sons, your teenage sons, and kidnapping the youngest of your children to keep, and raise, as our own.

    Were we good neighbors?
    But then again, we never had any intention of being good and weak.

    a lad with a little Viking & Norman blood in me

  • They were on par with Vikings, and they were worse than Normans or Romans

    The Anglo-Saxons were very cruel and had a system of slavery. When they came from Denmark/Saxony, they enslaved the indigenous Britons. Some of the descendants did come, such as the Tupper and Toper families (from Saxony, now English in ancestry), in a manner similar to how the USA drove the Amerindians off their land. The KKK might as well have learned their ways from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. Both did cruel and horrendous things. But yeah.

  • Saxon invaders were cruel on a par with the vikings

    Unfortunately history is written by the victors and this still colours our opinion today. They usurped the entire country from the native celts even the biased anglo saxon chronicle paints a picture of large scale ethnic cleaning, yet when the vikings did the same to them they cried foul some may say they got their just desserts

  • Yes, we were brutal of course

    You have to be brutal to overrule a country. We were brute warriors as the Vikings. As for an eye for an eye, we ambushed 70 Vikings, chopped off their heads, and threw them in a pit. Just a man with 100% Anglo Saxon blood giving his 2 cents on the subject..

  • Anglo Saxon invaders WERE brutal, but not unique.

    To be an invader you had to be brutal. The Anglo-Saxon invaders wre no different in this respect. But everybody of that time had to be brutal in order to progress in that violent and uncertain world. So while the Anglo Saxons were brutal I don't think it should be easy to hold it against them.

  • Not especially brutal

    The Angles, Saxons and Jutes that "invaded" Gaul and especially the British Island were not more or less brutal than the indigenous populations that they displaced. This was part of a centuries-long mass westward migration that followed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Most of these settlers were farmers, the rest almost entirely families.

    The few of them who were fighters and vikings were fierce, but no more brutal than the Romans or British.

  • I say no

    The saxons were cultured although having some savage individuals they had objects such as belts purses andd had beliefs in certain religions.
    If someone was so barbaric they wouldn't have all these luxuries and jewellery or accessorise. That is why i thinks that the saxons were not barbaric or savage despite there savage stereotype.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TheOncomingStorm says2013-12-09T17:31:21.653
Thank you for asking something intelligent.