The Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain

Porthos · The Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain

Recently, many scholars have adopted the theory that there was no mass-invasion by Anglo-Saxons, or a brutal conquest, but merely, a slow, gradual, culturalization of the native Britons, by a very small Anglo-Saxon immigrant elite. They site the lack of archeological evidence of mass graves and destruction as evidence of their theory. But, this is why I have a problem with that theory.

(1) If there was no invasion, slaughter, and mass genocide, then why would tens of thousands of refugees flee the island, and escape to Gaul, to settle in Brittany?

(2) How would a small, peaceful, immigrant elite, effectively eradicate all traces of Celtic language, and transfer a perfect adoption of Anglo-Saxon to the native Britons, who numbered 3-4 million?

(3) You know what? Enough with the formal number format, I'm just going to ramble from hear on. I'll try to keep it as coherent as possible.

This is my take on the matter. They had several tactical advantages that would more than compensate for their inferior numbers.

"This position is open to question, I know, but to suggest that the Saxons mixed in equally with the locals, or anything like it, and absorbed no more than about 10 words into a language of about half a million is stretching credulity much too far, in my opinion. On the face of it, one of the sciences has got to be wrong, and it certainly can't be linguistics!"

"The mechanics of ethnic cleansing aren't difficult to understand. The British had depended on Roman military power - when that was withdrawn in 410AD they were at something of a loss. They had actually, as far as we know, sub-contracted various military functions to the Saxon mercenaries, and the start of the takeover is associated with their revolt against their employers.

Even a small group of armed men is terrifying to a population ill-equipped and unprepared for war. So it must have been like Bosnia with people fleeing in panic when they saw columns of smoke on the horizon and heard the atrocity stories from refugees. The A/S Chronicle tells us that the Britons fled from the Germanics as though "from fire".

Having established themselves more and more migrants came over from North Germany. One of the sources tells us that one Germany kingdom was virtually denuded of population, as they crossed the North Sea in search of land."

Here's an English poem from 937
"No slaughter yet
was greater made
e'er in this island,
of people slain,
before this same,
with the edge of the sword;
as the books inform us
of the old historians;
since hither came
from the eastern shores
the Angles and Saxons,
over the broad sea,
and Britain sought,
fierce battle-smiths,
o'ercame the Welsh,
most valiant earls,
and gained the land."

"It just seems to me to be wrong to ignore stuff(in favour of flimsy archaelogical findings) like the 7th century laws of Ine, king of Wessex - whose laws codes placed a lesser value on the life of a Briton in his domain as compared to an Englishman(the blood price - wergild). I think the Briton's word counted less in court as well. That's subjection and you can only do that by force....and you can only do it if you've got enough muscle to impose your will."

" agree with that, cottar, and the only area our opinions may differ is in the number of Britons left in what we now call England after the invasions.

We know that killing took place, we know there were battles, and we know that it went on over a long period. We also know that Continentals (as we may call the early English) were not above massacring people, as witnessed by the beheading of 4,500 Saxons on a single day by Charlemagne in 783.

We know that there is a general paucity of Celtic archaeological finds post-dating the year 600 generally.

We know that when the Kingdom of Kent was created, the Britons fled to London. We know many of them fled later to the western parts of Britain. We know that many fled to Brittany.

As you point out, they were mentioned in the laws of Ine, and were evidently numerous enough to merit such mention. But, they had a miserable status, which I think is possibly comparable with the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines.

It has been argued with some logic - mainly on the basis that it would have been very hard for very large numbers of Continentals to migrate - that the British were comparatively numerous, and may even have outnumbered the Continentals (before finally becoming English themselves).

But anyone subscribing to this theory has a very major problem when it comes to language, and it is one he MUST address for his theory to be taken seriously.

It would be completely unprecedented for two peoples to live among each other in large numbers without lexical borrowing. It does not and can not happen. So we can rule out large numbers of Britons and Continentals living side-by-side.

The only explanation I can find for the linguistic invisibility of Brittonic language in English is a) there were not enough Britons left to have made even a minor footprint in the English language, and b) they had no identifiable culture, because they were slaves."

"What evidence is there for integration? Obviously it occured eventually but we are talking a very long time. The Brits were a defeated, subjugated people. They must have hated the English. There is the story of how British and English bishops in Rome, I think in the 8th century, wouldn't eat at the same table. There is another tale told in Morris about the profound shock experienced by a Welshman on hearing English voices calling for their hunting dogs on the banks of the Severn.

Some Welsh poetry sums it it up pretty evocatively

"Cynddylan's hall. It pierces me
To see it roofless, fireless.
Dead is my lord, and I am yet alive

Cynddylan's hall is desolate to-night
Where once I sat in honour
Gone are the men who held it, gone aare the women.

Cynddylan's hall. Dark is its roof
Since the English destroyed
Cynddlan, and Elvan of Powys.

........

And

"Gone are my brethern from the lands of the Severn
Around the banks of Dwyryw
Sad I am, my God, that I am yet alive.

Says it all really. Beyond that Offa's Dyke is a pretty clear cut statement of "apartheid". The laws of Ine of Wessex were "institutionally discrimminatory" if not "racist", as they specified lower blood-prices(wergilds) for Brits as opposed to Englishmen. Morris gives some examples of discrimminatory practice that were even carried over into Norman England."

These were quotes from another discussion on a different forum. What is your take on the matter?

One factor which might persuade me to believe one way or another, is the phenotype of the modern English people. If the English generally speaking, have lower frequencies of physical features which are common to Germanic speaking peoples of northern Europe, like high rates of blond hair, then perhaps, I would believe that the English mainly descend from native Britons, and that there was no ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxons.

For those of you who have been to England, would you say that the English, generally speaking, look more like their British cousins, the Welsh, Scottish, etc.? Or would you say that generally speaking, most Englishmen look more like Dutchmen and Danes?

Porthos

Here is the link to the original discussion: http://community.channel4.com/eve.../tpc/f/4476000511/m/801605747/p/1

Porthos

Here's a piece of one of my posts on the matter:

But you see, whether the English are primarily of Anglo-Saxon origin or indigenous origin is up to debate. Both sides of the argument are rather convincing, and genetic studies from both sides contradict each other.

But the fact is, nearly all traces of ancient British languages in modern day English are non-existent. If the Anglo-Saxons co-existed with a much larger native British population, then surely there would have been more inter-lingual lexical adoptions. But instead, less than a dozen Celtic words remain in English. I find it highly unlikely that a small minority's influence could be that overwhelmingly dominant, that the native majority's language is completely eradicated.

For me, the only way to truly discover the origins of the English, is to know and compare their physical appearance with other Celtic and Germanic peoples of the present day. The Anglo-Saxons were from northern Holland, northern Germany, and parts of Denmark. Modern people of these regions (like Friesland, whose language is very similar to English) have high frequencies of the blond hair, blue eyed, Tuetonic stereotype, and the average height here is very tall. Celtic people of the British Isles on the other hand, are historically typically shorter than the Tuetonic peoples of northern Europe and Scandanavia, and blondism is much rarer among these peoples, while dark hair is rather common, and red hair is proportionately common as well. The question is, which do the English look more like? I've never been to England myself, but from what I've seen on TV, I get the impression that Englishmen have lower frequencies of those stereotypical Tuetonic features, the way Dutchmen and Danes do, while at the same time, I know that they are historically, slightly taller than the Celts like the Welsh, and that the Welsh were thought of as being dark featured compared to the English.

If you guys could provide your input as to who they look more alike, it would be greatly appreciated in my research.

And as long as we're talking about the Anglo-Saxons, and we're on a language forum, could somebody please provide that beta modern English, without Latinate vocabulary that Brennus was working on before? But who is to say to what extent Norman French influenced the orthogrophy and phonology of modern English as well?

Benjamin [inactive]

Pauline

Dutch people are *very* tall !!!! I've heard, that in Limburg, the poeple often are shorter and a bit darker than the people of the other parts of the Netherlands.

Porthos

Pauline, thanks for your input. I know that *generally speaking*, the Dutch are very tall. In fact, all of the Dutch people I know, even first generation Dutch-Americans, are very tall. Even the girls and women are about as tall as me, if not taller, and I am definitely not short for a male! I encounterd hundreds of Dutch people at my stay and work in the hotel, and they were on average, "huge"! It was not unusual for me to see a Dutchmen well over 6ft. A couple of them I would say were about 6'6, while most of them seemed to be about 6'2 (188 cm). I myself am of average height for an American, and I'm only 177.8 cm.

Benjamin,

Come on man! I'm sure you can notice a difference if you really thought about it. Think about what is common. Britain for instance has the highest rate of red/ginger hair in the world. Most Welshmen and Irishmen have dark hair, etc., versus the higher frequency of blond hair among the Dutch, or say, northern Germans. You haven't been to Holland, so compare the English to the Germans you saw in Germany then.

Benjamin [inactive]

Pauline

fab

We recognise you here Josh !!

Since I just come back from Netherland, and since it seems to be the subject I'll give you my two euro cents:

In Netherlands (I visited Amsterdam and Utrecht), I saw a lot of very tall people, that would be very rare to see in France (or would be tourists). Most are blond or light haired.

But not all Dutch share these characters : you also can find some more short Dutch people, and, since the population of the netherlands is very mixed since a long time (like Britain's population)
The other thing is that when you walk in Amsterdam (or in any other European major coty), most people you met are not locals... I crossed Spaniards, Italians, Chineses, a lot of Americans, etc...
Not to forget the immigrant : mainly Indonesians, Turks, North Africans, Chinese, and some latin-americans. Most of them are integrated and speak Dutch. There is alos since about 500 years a big jew community from portuguese and Spanish origins (who have been expulsed for inquisition reasons) - their descendants have often mix with locals more or less... So nowadays the Dutch population is quite mixed and present different kind of peoples.

I think it should be not so different in England.
as for I remember the English population doesn't seem much different from Dutch one, maybe the average height is lower.

Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos

So, Fab, when you say that the Dutch look pretty similar to the English, that would imply that the English have high rates of blond hair, blue eyes, and other light features, right? I'm sorry I'm rehashing this issue. It's just that my investigation is still unresolved. :( Of course, I realize these are all generalities, as physical characteristics vary from location to location. Some "Celtic" people can look "Tuetonic" as well. For example, my father was mainly of Welsh and English extraction, and he has a broad forehead, blond hair, and blue eyes. On the other hand, my mother is lighter complected than my father, so, so much for the swarthy Spanish stereotype. I came out with the same color eyes that our friend Fab has, and with his same skin tone, only that my hair is a much lighter shade of brown.

And I invented the question mark. :shock: :?:

Sander

What's all this talk of an invasion? I thought the Anglo-Saxons were invited by the Celtic warlords themselves after the Romans left ...

Porthos

Yeah, and then the mercanaries turned on their employers! I think it is safe to say that they overstepped their welcome when they started looting, raping, and killing the Britons.

Sander

Porthos

No, I haven't seen the Frisian coast. I've never been to the Netherlands. Why do you ask?

Sander

Benjamin [inactive]

Friesland:

Hmmm. It looks exactly like East Anglia. Well, I'm sure that they must've felt very at home when they arrived!

Sander

very nice pictures, no imaging them with the sea tides (flooding virtually everything every 8 hours, nothing grows there because of the salt) and without the nice mills and straw buildings (and replace them with straw sheds). A bit like this:

Elaine

:? Scratch Frisian Coast off my list of places to visit...

Porthos

Yep, I was just going to say that myself. It reminded me a lot of the English landscape.

Deborah

Fredrik

Benjamin wrote:

Porthos

Fredric,
Once again, I could't agree with you more. You always seem to share a similar opinion with me.

<<But don't tell me that Britons and Danes look the same, because they don't. Britons look like a nation of swarthy dwarfs compared to the Danes>>

Here's my take on the matter, and it is just a generalization, so don't read into it further than that, as if I'm trying to say all of these people fit perfectly into this profile. But, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people do generally look different from say, Danes. They're not called "silkies' for no reason. Think of same famous Celtic people you know. Sean Connery, Clive Owen, Collin Farrel, Ioan Gruffud, Catherine Zeta-Jones, etc. I don't think any of them could pass for a Scandanavian, and if they did, they would be a rare find in a place like Denmark. Also, blond hair is extremely common among the Dutch and Scandanavians, but not nearly as much as among the English, and especially, those of the Celtic fringe. On the other hand, brown hair and red hair is a lot more common in Britain than it is in Scandanavia.

Benjamin,
Honestly, from your pic, you look like a stereotypical Briton. If I saw you on the street, and I had to guess what your nationality was, I would bank on the British Isles, not Germany, because the milky white complexion, and red hair is totally stereotypical British look.

The reason I take such an interest in the subject is mainly for historical purposes. I like to know where people came from, and how things got the way they did, so population movements are important to me. I'm trying to determine how many Anglo-Saxons actually arrived in Britain, and how many there were compared to remaining Celts in modern England.

I think the western, and especially, the south western part of modern England is predominantly inhabited by people of Celtic origin, because the Saxons made rapid progress in conquering these regions around the 700s. In this region, at that time in history, they claimed too much land at such a quick pace, that there is no way their settlers ending up outnumbering and displacing the people of this region.

If I had to guess, I would say the English look like a mix of Saxon and Celtic, but I have never actually been to England, so I can't say that for a certainty. There are some English like Keira Knightley who I might assume to be Celtic. I've met a couple of English families from the north of England, who almost talked with a brogue, and had Celtic features (dark hair, dark eyes, light skin).

Could you help me out with that Fredric? Do you think that Englishmen look more like continental Germanic people (Dutch, north Germans, Scandanavians) or more like Celtic peoples?

I know that historically, the English were supposedly taller than the Welsh, and that the Celts had dark features. The "black Irish", the "dark Welsh", the "silkies" etc. But, English are a little shorter than most Germanic speaking nations, and blondism is not as common either I don't think.

Benjamin [inactive]

Just of interest, Josh, what nationalities would you guess that the people in these photographs are? (Without looking at the web addresses).

1.

2.

Porthos

I would say the first picture would be from the British Isles. Maybe Scottish or Irish. Perhaps, but less likely, English.

The second one is tough to say, because a lot of Germanic speaking peoples look so alike, but if I had to guess, I would say northern German or Dutch maybe? And "Dutch" also applies to Flemings, since they're basically the same. That would be my primary guess, but I'm probably wrong. Where are they from?

Porthos

I could very easily be wrong about the second pic, but the first one has definitely got to be from the Celtic Fringe (Ireland, Scotland, Wales), or they could possbibly be English. I say this because there is not one blond in the whole group, dark hair, and dark eyes predominate, and light complexions and northern European facial features. That is *classic* British Isles right there.

The second one is anybody's guess, but I'm sticking with Dutch/North German.

Benjamin [inactive]

You're more or less right. The first group are English, whilst the second are German.

I should say though that I don't remember noticing a higher percentage of people with blonde hair than in England when I was there earlier this year. The other difficulty, of course, is that so many people dye their hair blonde. The stereotypical 'German' look only really applies to a minority there.

You keep mentioning red-hair, but it's only a very small minority in England (5-10%, maybe). I remember noticing a similar percentage in Germany.

Icke

Loic

If I am not wrong, Roy Makaay, Robin van Persie, Giovanni van Bronckhorst as well as Johnny Heitinga all have Indonesian blood in them. Same goes for Danny Landzaat.

In Giovanni and Danny's case, though, they have Moluccan antecedents which is culturally as well as racially removed from the maintream Indonesian population with their large liquid eyes, copper skin and small frame. Moluccus was Dutch until the early 1970s when Indonesia forcibly annexed it as Irian Jaya.

That can well explain why some of the players you mentioned above have dark features.

Look at Rafael van der Vaart. I remembered seeing him blond before although his hair becomes progressively dark as winter approaches. But then again, he's not an archetypal Dutchman as his mum is a Spaniard.

Pauline

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Joris_Mathijsen.JPG

Porthos

Benjamin,

See! You can tell the differences between nationalities a lot of times. At least I can.

But, I'm begginning to think that the English look more like Celtic populations of the British Isles, than they do Germanic. Besides Keira Knightley, other famous English celebs like the Beatles, Orlando Bloom, etc. A lot of those people look very *Celtic*, and red hair is also more common in England than in any country in the world. Among Celtic populations red hair tends to be more common than blond hair, whereas in places like the Netherlands or Scandanavia blond hair is very common.

David

Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos

I always thought that too, but according to some sources I read, England has the highest rate of red hair actually.

Actually, I looked up on Wiki, and it says the Scots have the highest rate of red hair. So, obviously one of the sources is wrong. Would you say that ginger hair is a lot more common in the Celtic fringe than in England?

fab

Britanny or Galicia are consider to be "celtic countries", but actually red hair is very rare in these regions. I've been in Britanny a lot of times I have never seen a red-haired person there.

Josh, I think you make a wrong way to assume that "Celtic" relate to a specific physical description of people. 'Celtic' relates a a former group of various peoples who were living in most places of western Europe and were united by the fact of speaking related languages, that's all. People of Britanny and Scotland may be both considered as "celtic" and feel a same "atlantic cultural connexion", they mostly don't necesary look the same (they don't due to my experience in these places)

Porthos

When I use "Celtic" as a general physical description, I'm only referring to the people of the British Isles, who generally share high rates of red hair, or dark features and light skin.

Benjamin [inactive]

fab

I may be wrong but I think that red-hair id a genetic characteristic that have been developping in the north of the british isles more specificly, due maybe to the lack of sun, the natural skin protection was not necessary and has had tended to disappear.

I tend to think that Irish and Scotish may have a big proportion of red -hair people, and England, wales and cornwall a less since they are situated more southern.

I think that it has nothing with any "celtic" origins. Britain is not the most "celtic" place in a pure "historic/genetic" point of view. We have to remember that the celtic culture in Britain has foreign origins since it was coming from the continent.

Pauline

Sometimes you can find red-haired people in belgium, in wallonie and flanders. There's a family in my village who have red-hair, but it's unusual i think. I thought, that there was a connection between red-hair, very sun-sensitive-skin and celtic, but I'm not sure. Also, I thought, that the celtic people lived in all europe, before they have been forced to go (escape) to the extreme west.

fab

" Also, I thought, that the celtic people lived in all europe, before they have been forced to go (escape) to the extreme west. "

Yes, but the question can be "have celts relay escaped to the extreme west", or is it only the celtic languages that have survived to Romanic and germanic influences due to the geographical isolation of the extreme western Europe peninsulas that we consider today to be Celtic ? without huge and complete move of populations ? Or both phenomenons combined ?

Porthos

It is more likely that in some places, the Celts were assimilated by Germanic speaking peoples, or as in much of Gaul and Iberia, by Latin speaking peoples. The Celts used to dominate Europe, but were slowly pushed further west starting around 200 B.C., by Germans and by Romans, and later, by Anglo-Saxons. In places like Austria, it is very likely that the Celts remained in the region, only adopting a Germanic language and mixing with Germanic people. In France, a similar situation is found. About 2/3 of Gaul was a Celtic land at the time of the Roman conquest. The Gauls were assimilated within Roman culture, and mixed with Roman colonists from the mediterranean world.

Pauline,
Red hair is certainly found among other populations, only that it is not nearly as common as it is in the Celtic fringes of the British Isles. My family is of Spanish descent, and about a third of us have red hair. It's not flaming red hair, but auburn, and red nonetheless. Possbily, some of my ancestors came from northern Spain, (a lot of Celtic ancestry there) as red hair is very common, and we're light complected.

Fredrik

As Porthos agreed with me above, I think it's important to stress that genetics are awfully complicated. Groups can have basically the same genes (as Danes and English), but still look different, probably because they have inherited slightly dissimilar gene combinations or because diffrent genes are dominant in different populations etc. It's really extremely complicated. For instance some siblings are more related to each other than others are, i.e. some share more common gene material, others less.

While I agree with Porthos that Benjamin looks British because of his red hair and milky skin, I was more thinking of that certain Prince Charles look (no offence intended

), i.e. that look of an attentive, but eccentric gentleman that is so typically British!
And how "British" is Prince Charles...? Perhaps that's why you fit in so well in Germany......lol, just kidding.

Pauline

Porthos

I don't believe or want to believe that anybody is pure blooded anything. We, all far back enough in time, share a common ancestor. But, as populations migrated and became isolated, certain gene pools began mixing only among themselves, and further reinforced genetic tendencies, which created a unique independent evolution for the repsective gene pools. Also, during this time, language and culture began to undergo a distinct evolution over time, among the isolated population groups. This is the basis of what some might call a "ethnicity". So, being as our genetic material manifests itself in the form of our phenotype, then there is a direct correlation between the physical attributes of a population and its genetic history.

The people's of Africa developed curly hair, because many of the original founders of what would become these civilizations most likely had curly hair. If they continued to reproduce with others of close relations who had curly hair, then their children, and their children's children, would also have curly hair, with this particular trait becoming reinforced with each generation. Recessive genes can pop up in a population however, which explains why one person may resemble a person from a different continent somewhat. It's just like if I were to marry an eastern Asian woman, my child's eyes would most likely be slightly more almond shaped than my own, and if he were to marry an Asian girl, then my grandkids eyes would be more slanted than even my son, and so on. If the pattern were to continue, five or six generations from now, nobody would know that my descendant had a Caucasian ancestor. Genetics is a very interesting area of science, and it has always fascinated me.

Porthos

This is an important issue in more ways that one. The notion that the English are of Tuetonic stock could possibly have fundamentally changed the course of history as we know it. Remember, crazy Hitler had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, prior to his invasion of that country, and prior to the war with Britain. He always admired Britain, and hoped to co-exist with her, so long as she would concede control of the continent to the Nazis. The whole Battle of Britain was just an attempt to break the English people's will, so that they would exit the war, and give Hitler free reign to do as he please on the European continent. Hitler although proposing to launch an invasion of Britain, never seriously considered it. According to his contemporaries, he spoke of the English in a positive light, as he saw them as being of a similar racial ancestry as the Germans, because the English were seen as Teutonic Anglo-Saxons. Although he ordered the concentration of shipping and troops through the summer of 1940, he had a deeper desire to fight the communist to the east, than the Anglo-Saxons to the west. As soon as France had fallen, Hitler proposed a peaceful solution, since the English and Germans were of a similar racial background. It would be better, he thought, if the two united to fight the Slavic Bolsheviks, instead of Tuetons fighting among themselves. How would the war have ended had it not been for a two front war? Would the continent still be in the hands of the Nazis to this day? It was all because of a crazy lunatic in control of the Nazi war machine. His blunders are nearly innumerable.

Sander

Porthos

He repeatedly made reference to the English as being his "Germanic brothers". Only if they could realize the genius of his vision, he said, all would be well. He reluctantly fought England, but his main concern was always crushing communism, and defeating the Russians, because one, they were communist, and two, they were Slavic.

Napoleon also made plans to invade England. He amassed several hundreds of thousands of troops, and even a navy for the supposed invasion of England which never materialized. Most historians agree that this was just a faint on his part, or some sort of mental warfare. He also wanted the British to keep as many men at home, defending the island as possible, so that fewer would be available to assist French enemies on the continent.

Pauline

Pauline

what has happend to my message ? I put a interesting quote from a book review about Hitler.

Then someone has wrote an answer to me, but it has appeared in my name !!

Benjamin [inactive]

Sorry Pauline, I always seem to make this mistake!

Pauline

now it's re-appeared !!!

this happend, it's not my imagination for sure.

Pauline

Porthos

Very good selection Pauline!

Pauline

Porthos

The German people were manipulated and taken advantage of during desperate times. The 1920s were an awful time for Germans, with unprecedented levels of inflation and unemployment, as well as political instability and a sense of humiliation after the loss of WWI. There was a strong current of anti-semitism in Germany at this time, as there was in other European countries. Hitler played on this, and he gave the German people an object with which to point the finger at, to release their frustration on the Jews. Most Germans truly became evil. I think most Germans were in actuality, just political moderates, and regular human beings, who didn't realize what they were getting themselves into. They just got caught up with the heat of the moment. But once an authoritarian, fascist regime took control of the country, they really had no choice but to go along with the government. Otherwise, they would be imprisoned or shot. Many also might have personally objected to the holocaust, but they remained indifferent to it, as they chose to place a higher value on patriotism and fatherland, than freedom, justice, and liberty. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature under such trying circumstances. And then, the young generation which grew up during this time period and would later fill the lines of the Nazi armies, were perpetuallly brainwashed by government propoganda, things like "Hitler's youth groups", etc. They really began to believe that they were a superior race, and that it was their destiny to conquer the world. They had been programmed to think that way, from youth on up.

But Hitler was an idiot, and he made a lot of stupid decisions as commander of his army, which cost him the war, and fortunately for us, guarenteed liberty.

Sander

Porthos

Yep, you're right Sander. I'm really a secret spy for the fatherland, and a member of the Fourth Rheich, who is trying to persuade others to support the resurgence of Germany's power, while infiltrating the ranks of Americans, masquerading as an American born high school student.

Sander

Porthos

Oh, I'm sorry for accidentally adding an extra 'h' in the word while typing at a fast speed. I hope my SS supervisors don't hang me by the toes because of it.

Pauline

Porthos, it was to be more realistically in your american role !!!

Porthos

Fredrik

Yes, the Anglo-Saxon fatherland:

Schleswig-Holstein, meerumschlungen,
deutscher Sitte, hohe Wacht,
wahre treu, was schwer errungen,
bis ein schönrer Morgen tagt!
Schleswig-Holstein, stammverwandt,
wanke nicht, mein Vaterland
Schleswig-Holstein, stammverwandt,
wanke nicht, mein Vaterland

And, Englishmen, this doesn't mean that your ancestral fatherland is a land of wankers!