Weren't the Saxons immigrants to England?

[applegrove]

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Well, yeah. We are all immigrants, ever since some of us left Africa.

I suppose you can consider the first humans to occupy a given part of the world to be an exception, since they weren't moving in where there were already people. But honestly, humans have essentially done nothing but travel, immigrant, and conquer new territory from the very beginning.

[applegrove]

2. And the sum of peoples is greater than each alone.

[RobinA]

3. Do There Have To Be

people there for newcomers to be immigrants? You are right, though. Humans have been colonizing since they left Africa.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. My take is no, there don't have to be people there for the newcomers to be immigrants.

I'm sure there's more than one way to think about this.

[Celerity]

19. 900,000 yo footprints in Norfolk are the oldest evidence so far for humans in Britain

Discovering the oldest human footprints in Europe

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-oldest-human-footprints-in-europe.html

In May 2013 a storm exposed mysterious hollows on the beach at Happisburgh in Norfolk. Follow the progress of the research team as they realise they have found human footprints that are around 900,000 years old.

Happisburgh (pronounced Haysborough) is one of the most important archaeological sites in Europe, the location of the first known human presence in Britain. Dramatic erosion of the coastline is exposing exciting new finds, but scientists are in a race against time before they are lost to the sea. When foot-shaped impressions were exposed briefly in 2013, a team worked quickly to photograph the patterns from different angles. The photographs were used to create detailed 3D digital models, which confirmed the hollows were trails of human footprints.

Earliest evidence of humans in Britain

By measuring the footprints, the team were able to estimate the height and weight of the individuals who made them. It appears a small group of adults and children, between 90 and 170 centimetres tall, left the trails as they walked along the mudflats of a river estuary.

Using pollen in sediment layers, the scientists dated the footprints to between 850,000 and 950,000 years ago. This age means the footprints may have been left by Homo antecessor, an early human species known to be present in Europe at that time. Not only are the footprints the earliest evidence yet of humans in Britain, but they are the oldest human footprints outside Africa.

[Generic Other]

5. They were armed invaders

Slight difference?

[doubleplusgood]

12. +1000 nt

[Hekate]

15. One would think so

Wouldn’t ine?

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Yes.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

7. Sure.

So were the Romans, the Angles, the Vikings, the Normans, etc.

And that's only what I know with certainty.

[Hekate]

16. Romans were expanding the empire, mostly. Vikings were seasonal raiders so terrifying...

...they ended up getting their own line in the Roman Catholic Mass, begging God to “deliver us from the terrible Norsemen,” and inspiring the Irish to build tall, narrow, stone shelters accessible only by a very tall ladder that could be pulled in after as many villagers as possible crammed inside.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Sure. Angles and Saxons pushed the Britons out of England, mostly.

Britons seem to have taken refuge in Cornwall and Wales. Angles and Saxons enjoyed the bounty of England, at least until those pesky Danes and Norwegians decided to move in. There goes the neighborhood. And then the annoying Normans had a battle and recorded it on a tapestry.

[ananda]

9. Yes, in the early 5th c. they invaded from Scandinavia.

The Danish influence is still very strong in the north of England.

[AZProgressive]

10. That is true

During that time period from 5th-10th century Vikings were immigrants in England.

I played Assassin's Creed Valhalla and basically I'm a Viking that traveled to England in the 9th century and I know King Aelfred is supposed to fight off the Vikings but at the moment I'm pretty much the King of England. An Ireland update comes later this month.

[ananda]

13. I don't know if I would call them "immigrants."

They invaded the country and took it over
until the Normans came.

I wouldn't exactly call the Normans "immigrants"
either.

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Undocumented immigrants

Unwanted immigrants. Forced their way in. Took stuff from the natives. Quite shocking, really.

[WarGamer]

14. The term "native" is a misnomer.

We're ALL immigrants to and from somewhere. Just as every centimeter of land on the planet has been fought over and changed hands 1000x.

[hunter]

17. Immigrants to lands previously unoccupied by humans become "native."

There are plenty of people like that.

The first people of America, Australia, the Pacific Islands, etc.

My wife and children have ancestors who came to America thousands of years ago, before there were any other people here.

[WarGamer]

20. Yes... and No.

Do you know how FREQUENTLY North American land changed hands in the centuries before the arrival of Europeans?

Scientists believe the Clovis First theory is probably wrong and the first arrivals in North America may have been 25,000 years ago from East Asia.

Looks like Siberians share nearly exact DNA of that of early native Americans.

[hunter]

18. Half my ancestors were killers of Saxons and Romans...

... the other half Saxons and Romans killing everyone else.

They got tired of it and emigrated to America in the 18th and 19th century.