Saxons, or the People of the Knife (Seax)?

some words picked here and there can send us very far:
to confuse ourselves a bit more, why not to compare the old brittonic name of Pritania which became Britannia for Romans, surely through a stage Brittonia where we could find a confusion with Brittia, relatively close Celtic name for North Pritania, in it the word *britt or *brikt, become 'brith' : "variated", "speckled", applied to Picts (tattooed). So, your pre-"bird" pridan word could be linked to Celts too, no end!
ATW Sarmatians mercenaries were send to Britain by Romans armies, so as their dialects were close to the Scythians ones, there is no odd that some loans could have taken place in this frame (so more Latin or Celtic than Germanic); in fine: all I-Eans were Scythians?!? Simplest, I take it.
 
Another thing, from the ancient European languages, the language spoken by migrating Saxons to England was most close to current Iranic languages.
But Scythians were not fully IndoEuropean people, but South Siberian/Central Asian partially and mostly, Nordish DNA people.

Hmm, in fact all the Germanic-speaking people would have that closeness to Iranic languages - or rather to Indo-Iranian ones as whole, to be more accurate -, not just the Saxons, so that doesn't tell us much or even anything about the supposed Saxon-Scythian connection, because the linguistic connection is extremely ancient and dates to even before the appearance of the Proto-Germanic language, and in fact the Germanic branch is closer to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, which suggests some Early Bronze Age (probably CWC, I think) connection. But none of that has anything to do with Saxons in the later Iron Age.
 
Think this Seax theory and Scythians theories should be taken with agrain of salt.
Simple thing is that those Saxons were called Sasanach and are called Sasanach in the current Welsh Gaelic and Irish Gaelic.
And migrants from Lower Saxony to Romania were and are called Sas at singular.
As for the Seax and Saxons well sorry, Saxons from Romania never had Seaxes.
Maybe the Vikings brought the use of Seaxes, cause is quite clear that is not the Saxons ,to me.
As for the flags of Essex with those curved blades, the Seaxes found in archaeological sites are not curved.
Those Essex flags with curved blades are looking to me to be rather linked with the British Pirates.
 
These curved blades with a notch from the more recent flags of Essex are what is called "scimitars".
Not Seaxes.
Now since is somehow close to the subject do anyone knows when is the word Essex mentioned earliest, in the history?
Essex cannot be more ancient than New English language I think.
 
Think this Seax theory and Scythians theories should be taken with agrain of salt.
Simple thing is that those Saxons were called Sasanach and are called Sasanach in the current Welsh Gaelic and Irish Gaelic.
And migrants from Lower Saxony to Romania were and are called Sas at singular.
As for the Seax and Saxons well sorry, Saxons from Romania never had Seaxes.
Maybe the Vikings brought the use of Seaxes, cause is quite clear that is not the Saxons ,to me.
As for the flags of Essex with those curved blades, the Seaxes found in archaeological sites are not curved.
Those Essex flags with curved blades are looking to me to be rather linked with the British Pirates.

The Gaelic and Welsh speakers (Welsh is not Gaelic) refer to English people or English things as "Saxon" in their languages as that is one of the tribes that arrived in England. It doesn't require mental gymnastics to figure out how they got that name in Celtic languages.

Iron Age Germanic tribes ranging from Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, Baiuvarii, Longobards, etc used seaxes, be them scramasax or small renditions of the knife. What is this preoccupation with trying to remove the Saxons from users of the seax?

Saxons in Romania are 12th-13th century (etc) migrants from Franconian speaking areas of Germany. A rather mid to high medieval, settled and Christianised people. Far removed from the Iron Age migratory tribes of the past. Why would they use seaxes?

Essex and Middlesex flags are a more modern creation! They were not and are not the actual flags from Dark Age Britain.

These curved blades with a notch from the more recent flags of Essex are what is called "scimitars".
Not Seaxes.
Now since is somehow close to the subject do anyone knows when is the word Essex mentioned earliest, in the history?
Essex cannot be more ancient than New English language I think.

I already mentioned this earlier about the flags and cutlasses. Essex, as a term has its origins in Old English. In the term "Ēast Seaxna" from the kingdom called in Old English "Ēast Seaxna Rīce" which was active from 527 to 825 AD.
 
We had lots of Saxons in Romania and no one used Seaxes.
They are called sasi at plural and at singular sas.
They were brought in Transylvania starting with 1150 or so.
Those Saxons that migrated to South England were called sasanach in the language of local Gaels so I think we can safely suppose they were from same Germany people.
Why would Saxons renounced to use their traditional Seaxes?
As for the history of England with some Scythians that migrated there, what can say I?
I got no opinion about that.
Maybe Vikings brought the use of Seaxes.
Seems a lot more likely.
 
Sorry for writting nonsense here - highly doubt Sachsen/Saxon comes from "son of a seax".
Will attempt to talk to some Saxons from Romania maybe some know the origin of their tribes name.
 
Let us try some more logical explanation.
Saksen is how Saxon people are called on Frisian.
However the Saxons from Lower Saxony are calling their land in their own German dialect:
Nedersassen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Saxony
https://fr.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Neddersassen
So they actually call themselves Sas in their own language.
Exactly as we call them in Romanian.
And this is also explaining their name in Gaelic British and Irish Gaelic languages or sasanach.
And Welsh Gaelic and Irish Gaelic were and are calling England:
Sasana.
Old English however is more close to Frisian and in Frisian Saxons are called Saksen.
As for the Seax who knows, but I do not think is related to Lower Saxony migrants that came to England.
 
We had lots of Saxons in Romania and no one used Seaxes.
They are called sasi at plural and at singular sas.
They were brought in Transylvania starting with 1150 or so.
Those Saxons that migrated to South England were called sasanach in the language of local Gaels so I think we can safely suppose they were from same Germany people.
Why would Saxons renounced to use their traditional Seaxes?
As for the history of England with some Scythians that migrated there, what can say I?
I got no opinion about that.
Maybe Vikings brought the use of Seaxes.
Seems a lot more likely.

Have you ever thought that maybe the Latin works in Britain that referred to the "Saxones" was a possible influence on the Gaelic and Brythonic languages for their own terms for Saxons? It's not hard to make this connection.

Again, Welsh and Cornish are not Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon tribes encountered Brythonic people in England, not Gaels.

You are aware of what I just posted right? The Transylvanian Saxons are called Saxons erroneously. Freistaat Sachsen got its name from incoming Saxons and Thuringians, this is a medieval Carolingian era movement, not iron age.

You are aware that I've already stated that the Longobards, Alemanni, Saxons, Bavarians, Etc ALL have been found with seaxes in their graves and they PREDATE the Vikings by centuries! You are making conclusions without actually considering any evidence.

Sorry for writting nonsense here - highly doubt Sachsen/Saxon comes from "son of a seax".
Will attempt to talk to some Saxons from Romania maybe some know the origin of their tribes name.

Who ever said "Saxon" meant son of a seax? You made that conclusion through "Sachsen". It's an erroneous conclusion.
 
The name Seax - which is pronouced Seaks - applied to a certain type of blade is exactly from ProtoIndoEuropean Sek, which means to cut.
Think the idea that Saxons were calling themselves like that because of the Seaks blade might not be entirely true.
Or might be not true at all.
 
Sasanach is exactly from Sassen not from Latin Saxones and Romanian Sas is even closer to Sassen.
England is even called Sasana in Welsh and Irish Gaelic which is very close to Sassen.
Because is very likely that Saxons were speaking their own language not Frisian.
Angles should have spoken a different West German language than Saxons but a close one.
Saxon is very obvious coming after the Norman conquest.
After Norman conquest English language got a lot of Romance words, including Saxon.
But Gaelic languages retained their more ancient Sasanach and Sasana.
 
The Scottish word "Sasannach" is from the Middle Irish word "Saxanach" which is combination of "Saxain" meaning "England" and the suffix "-ach", which means "related to" or "characterised by". The Middle Irish word "Saxain" is the masculine plural, in dative and nominative singular and plural forms it is "Saxa". Lets investigate this word, Saxa. Saxa is a Middle Irish word borrowed from the Latin word "Saxō", this Latin word is from the Old Saxon word "Sahsō" which derives from Proto-Germanic "sahsô", which is likely a derivative of yet again the Proto-Germanic word sahsą, which comes from the PIE word *sek-, which as we all know means "to cut".
Now when we look at the singular nominative form of the Latin word Saxo in plural it is "Saxones", genitive singular is Saxonis, plural genitive is "Saxonum".


The Welsh word Saesneg is from the Proto-Brythonic word *Seis (plural is *Saïson) again this word is borrowed from the Latin word Saxō and ultimately of the same Proto-Germanic origin and eventual PIE origin.
Saxons were readily referenced well before the Norman Conquest, they were mentioned in various documents in Britain and before that by Romans documenting events and various tribal movements and activity.


I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore, are we discussing what the name "Saxon" refers to? Where it came from? I think it's pretty clear through the etymologies where the name comes from and I think it is pretty clear that the Saxons are a Germanic tribe from the North Sea area.
 
I have problem to trust the official theory from main stream, about Sasana/England and Sasanach coming from Saxanach.
And Saxanach coming from Latin Saxon.
Is quite clear Welsh people had direct contact to Saxon migrants.
I doubt they were communicating in Latin.
As for the theory that Saxons were called like that from Seaks, people from Low Saxony were not speaking Frisian.
Frisian language is telling to the Saxons Sachsen.
People from Lower Saxony were speaking an ancient Old German.

So they were not calling themselves actually Saxen :) .
Just found, ancient Saxons were calling themselves Sahson or Sasson in ancient Old German.
No link to Seax, the knife that very likely came with Danish Vikings.
Because is identical with the long blade knives that were used by Vikings.

The main knife found in Saxon sites from England is not the Seax, but a knife with a short blade, which was very likely used for things in the house, as cooking and so on :) .

As for the theories of some English historian that the name of the Saxons came from the Seax, highly disagree with those.
 
So Longobards and Baiuvarii tribes who predate the Vikings by centuries got their seaxs from time-traveling Vikings?

By the way the unique shaped seax you reference is the broken-back seax. There are many varieties of seax.

Now the seaxs found in England, were not just the short variety. Do you care to elaborate on the Seax of Beagnoth (Thames Scramasax) found in the Thames? If the Vikings are responsible for spreading the use of the seax how come the runes on this Thames scramasax are in Anglo-Saxon futhorc?

Why are there seaxs of varying sizes and types found in Frankish graves, Alemanni graves, Baiuvarii graves and other Germanic graves that predate the Vikings?
 
Last edited:
Is quite clear that the name of the Lower Saxony people was Sahson and Sasson in their language.
Is also quite clear that Vikings used seaxes, but they never started to call themselves Saxons, because they were using Seaxes.
The name Saxon is taken from Old Frisian-like English language, which was Saksen, or so.
Seax is having an extra e after S.
Sahson or Sasson is more likely like the son of Sah or Sas and considering that Romanians were calling and are calling colonists from Lower Saxony Sasi at plural and Sas at singular, is a lot more likely that the Saxons were calling themselves in their own language Sas.

Is also very likely that Angles and Jutes took Sasson/Sahson and pronounced it Sakson which later turned into Saksen.
The term Seax is again very clearly coming from ProtoIndoEuropean Sek, which means to cut.

The idea that most Saxons that migrated from Lower Saxony to England were people that were carrying knives with them and were attacking native "Romance and Insular Keltic speakers of England" is very weird and is not supported by any archaelogical discoveries or historical writings.
I do not say that some Saxon warriors were not using seaxes, and the Vikings were also using Seaxes, and other Germanic people were also using Seaxes.
Where are the evidences of wars between "Saxon invaders" and natives of South England or from where the claim that Saxons exterminated all natives from England?
Because South of England still has the Cornish people, as an Insular Celtic group.
And Welsh people are still there.
 
Last edited:
This Seaxes theory and that Saxons took their name from Seaxes ,from my point of view, is not supported by too many arguments.
Saxon warriors had as main weapon a sword, not a seax.
Seax might have been an additional weapon, as it was at Vikings.
Seax might have even been a larger knife, used for slaughtering pigs and cutting the slaughtered pigs, in pieces.
It is quite well known that Saxons kept pigs, from the archaeological diggings.
 
Last edited:
Here is a image of Normans attacking the AngloSaxons, at the Battle of Hastings:
Bayeux_Tapestry_4.jpg


The Vikings were not using horses in battles, for a great extent, while Normans are depicted using horses.
AngloSaxons are using a shield wall, which was very used by Norse Germanics, also.
No AngloSaxon from this picture has a seax with him.
They just have some long swords.
 
Last edited:
With the help of polysynthesis of the Circassian (Adyghe) language. The word sakes can be decomposed as follows: "se" - knife, cutting weapon, "kes" - cut. Another translation of “se” is a knife, cutting weapon, “a” hand, “kes” - long up to. Literally cutting weapons with a length of a hand.
 
Last edited:
This Seaxes theory and that Saxons took their name from Seaxes ,from my point of view, is not supported by too many arguments.
Saxon warriors had as main weapon a sword, not a seax.
Seax might have been an additional weapon, as it was at Vikings.
Seax might have even been a larger knife, used for slaughtering pigs and cutting the slaughtered pigs, in pieces.
It is quite well known that Saxons kept pigs, from the archaeological diggings.

So why do we find seaxes in Anglo-Saxon graves within England? Why do we find seaxes among related Germanic people (Longobards - who had Saxon contact and brought Saxons to Italy with them), Franks (again, Saxon contingents in Brittany, etc), the list continues.
Here is a image of Normans attacking the AngloSaxons, at the Battle of Hastings:
Bayeux_Tapestry_4.jpg

The Vikings were not using horses in battles, for a great extent, while Normans are depicted using horses.
AngloSaxons are using a shield wall, which was very used by Norse Germanics, also.
No AngloSaxon from this picture has a seax with him.
They just have some long swords.
Using the Bayeux Tapestry to illustrate your point of view is not very convincing as the Bayeux Tapestry and the era it depicts is quite a bit removed from the initial ethnogenesis of the Anglo-Saxon people in Britain.

I encourage you to actually look at the etymology of Saxon, it would answer your questions.
 
Is quite clear that the name of the Lower Saxony people was Sahson and Sasson in their language.
Is also quite clear that Vikings used seaxes, but they never started to call themselves Saxons, because they were using Seaxes.
The name Saxon is taken from Old Frisian-like English language, which was Saksen, or so.
Seax is having an extra e after S.
Sahson or Sasson is more likely like the son of Sah or Sas and considering that Romanians were calling and are calling colonists from Lower Saxony Sasi at plural and Sas at singular, is a lot more likely that the Saxons were calling themselves in their own language Sas.

Is also very likely that Angles and Jutes took Sasson/Sahson and pronounced it Sakson which later turned into Saksen.
The term Seax is again very clearly coming from ProtoIndoEuropean Sek, which means to cut.

The idea that most Saxons that migrated from Lower Saxony to England were people that were carrying knives with them and were attacking native "Romance and Insular Keltic speakers of England" is very weird and is not supported by any archaelogical discoveries or historical writings.
I do not say that some Saxon warriors were not using seaxes, and the Vikings were also using Seaxes, and other Germanic people were also using Seaxes.
Where are the evidences of wars between "Saxon invaders" and natives of South England or from where the claim that Saxons exterminated all natives from England?
Because South of England still has the Cornish people, as an Insular Celtic group.
And Welsh people are still there.

the Sahs- part of the name had surely to be pronounced as a guttural aspiration of ancient Saks-,so something like /saXs/ in phonetic writing, and this explain the Saks >> Sax- of the latin spellings -
No battle(s) between Insular Celts and Saxons (or Angles)??? Have you read some history books??? and the VI°/VII° Cy songs of Celtic Brittons of Northern today England vaunting their "kings" (like Uryen) proudness or mourning on their death???
 

This thread has been viewed 25017 times.

Back
Top