Were there Huns in Anglo-Saxon England?

Post Reply New Topic

If you take what the English monk Bede wrote in the 8th century literally, then the Anglo-Saxons, a Germanic people who founded the nation of England, were partly descended from the Huns, who had built a massive empire in central and eastern Europe under the rule of Attila in the early to mid-5th century AD:

http://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/wer ... gland.html

The Angles, and Saxons, who migrated to Britain, and became the English, were more likely to be fleeing the Huns than to be Huns.

Did you read the article?

Skimmed over it. Didnt see much evidence to the counter what I thought before- which is what I said above.

Great post and excellent reviews also

There is little evidence either way. As Caitlyn Green herself said, it's "idle speculation."

Most of the evidence is already known in the field. What drives its reinterpretation here and by others in the field is archaeological finds, such as cicada brooches discovered in England that are dated to the mid-5th century (the period under discussion), and whose design is associated with Pannonia (a region encompassing Hungary and environs) and the Black Sea region, both of which were at the center of the Huns' power. Since she wrote her post, there have been more such finds in England:

https://twitter.com/caitlinrgreen/statu ... 6918174725

Also, the kings of Kent, in SE England, from the Middle Ages claimed descent from a man named Octa, who is possibly linked to Ottar from the Norse sagas and from there to the Hunnic ruler Octar, who was the uncle of Attila. This was mentioned in the article.

It's clear that the situation in Anglo-Saxon England was much more complex than commonly assumed!

It is interesting.

Even the conventional view of the origin of the English is complex, and the reality is doubtlessly more complex.

The Germanic tribes that invaded from the European mainland as Rome fell had to have included Franks, and Frisians, as well as Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Probably Hunish mercenaries came over the North Sea in the mix as well. But the Huns had already pretty much lost their distinctive identity by that time.

Of course there could be Hun blood in some of the Anglo-Saxons who "invaded" England.

It depends on when the migrations occurred. The article mentions a number of sources saying the Anglo-Saxons were established in Britain by ca. 441, though some others put the number into the 450s. Attila died in 453. He was said by Priscus, who represented Constantinople in Attila's court, to rule over the "islands of the Ocean" by 449.

So?

Attilla never ruled Britain if thats what you mean. Niether date changes that fact.

You said the Huns had lost their identity when the Anglo-Saxons migrated to England. I was making clear that they may have been contemporaries of Attila so the Huns had not yet lost their identity.

As for Attila never ruling Britain, that he was said to to rule the "islands of the Ocean" in addition to the other evidence makes Green wonder if he did, at least in name. This, too, is discussed in the article.

The article is written by someone in the field and has many citations. You really should read it in depth. It answers many of the questions you've asked here.

Here are the relevant quotes, as posted in the OP article.

This is the classic description of the origins of the Anglo-Saxons given by Bede, which gives their origin as derived from the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes:

->"At that time the race of the Angles or Saxons, invited by Vortigern, came to Britain... They came from three very powerful Germanic tribes, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes."

This seems to exclude the Huns.

This was written by Priscus, Eastern Roman ambassador to Attila's court, regarding Attila:

->"When we expressed amazement at the unreasonableness of the barbarian, Romulus, an ambassador of long experience, replied that his very great good fortune and the power which it had given him had made him so arrogant that he would not entertain just proposals unless he thought that they were to his advantage. No previous ruler of Scythia or of any other land had ever achieved so much in so short a time. He ruled the islands of the Ocean and, in addition to the whole of Scythia, forced the Romans to pay tribute. He was aiming at more than his present achievements and, in order to increase his empire further, he now wanted to attack the Persians."

The import of this passage depends on what is meant by the "islands of the Ocean". Some authors have claimed that it refers to some islands in the Baltic Sea, some have argued that it refers to Scandinavia. Peter Heather in his 2005 book The Fall of the Roman Empire clarifies them as being of "the Atlantic, or west". (I got the book on Google Play.)

As Green mentions, authors of the Late Antiquity including St. Augustine considered Britain to be among the "islands of the Ocean". She mentions that Romulus's comment was obviously meant to shock, emphasizing the lack of precedence for Attila's achievements and putting Attila ruling the "islands of the Ocean" right up there with forcing the Romans (the Romans!) to pay tribute. That Britain, a longtime former Roman territory that was well-known to the Romans, would fall under Attila's dominion would be positively shocking, right up there with forcing the Romans to pay tribute.

The idea sounds ridiculous, but the evidence seems to gel. I wonder what any new evidence we can find would show us about this.

OK. I thought I had posted the other Bede quote, but apparently not (I was having lots of problems with that drat CAPTCHA, which really interferes with your ability to have a conversation and forces you to split your posts so it looks like you're quadruple-posting up the wazoo).

Anyway, here is where Bede writes in another part of his seminal work The Ecclesiastical History of the English People on the origins of the Anglo-Saxons, as quoted in the OP article:



This is more complex than the previous list, but it's possible that the previous list was something of a simplification. The interpretation of this passage is controversial, with some authors arguing that this was just a list of people the missionary Egbert wanted to preach to, but others argue that Bede writes what he means and that these are the peoples from whom the Anglo-Saxons descended. This list includes the Huns.

The other controversy is what is meant by Huns, with some authors arguing that it meant in general any Asiatic group, like the Avars, but others arguing that he means the 4th-5th century Huns.

Either way, this passage gives historians a lot of problems!