Oddly enough perhaps the Anglo-Saxons called the country Bretenland. The Romans called the country Britannia (Brittania, Britania, whatever) because they called the Celts who lived there Britanni. What the Britons called themselves or their country I don't know (similarly, what did the Belgae and the Gauls call themselves?)

When the Romans moved out several groups of invaders moved in: Jutes (from Jutland ), Saxons from (Lower) Saxony, Angles from the country in between and occasional others like Friesians. This is how the Venerable Bede describes it in his Ecclesiatsical History of the English People in 731.

They came from three very powerful Germanic tribes [de tribus Germaniae populis fortioribus], the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. The people of Kent [Cantuari] and the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight [Uictuarii, hoc est ea gens quae Uectam tenet insulam] are of Jutish origin and also those opposite the Isle of Wight, that part of the kingdom of Wessex [in provincia Occidentalium Saxonum] which is today called the nation of the Jutes [Iutarum natio nominatur]. From the Saxon country, that is, the district now know as Old Saxony, came the East Saxons, the South Saxons and the West Saxons. Besides this, from the country of the Angles, that is, the land between the kingdoms of the Jutes and the Saxons, which is called Angulus, came the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians and all the Northumbrian race [tota Nordanhymbrorum progenies] (that is, those people who dwell north of the river Humber) as well as the other Anglian tribes [ceterique Anglorum populi]. Angulus is said to have remained deserted from that time to this. Their first leaders are said to have been two brothers, Hengist and Horsa. Horsa was afterwards killed in battle by the Britons, and in the eastern part of Kent there is still a monument bearing his name. They were the sons of Wihtgisl, son of Witta, son of Wecta, son of Woden, from whose stock [de cuius stirpe] the royal families of many kingdoms [multarum provinciarum regium genus] claimed their descent.

Bede later and in general uses gens Anglorum to refer to the whole caboodle, but why I don't know. Gregory the Great is said to have seen some beautiful children being sold in the slave market in Rome and to have asked what they were. 'Angli' he was told. 'Non Angli, sed Angeli' he is supposed to have replied. Indicating that Angli was becoming the generic name as early as the Sixth century (if the story is true)

Of course it's very useful that 'England' emerged as the name, because if it had been Saxonland or Jutland or Friesland, life could have got very confusing. Luckily the name 'Angulus' seems to have died out as a German placename.

Incidentally, talking about apocryphal stories, Heinrich Heine is supposed to have remarked about something or other: 'Wie eng, wie englisch'.

well, first of, it was not called Saxland by the natives but Sachsen (ch pronounced like a x, this is a special exception in German language), Saxland being the Scandinavian name for it. and no, at least in Germany there are no Angles and no region that was called like that.

Most archaeological evidence which seemed to these days be supported by genetic research puts the number of Germanic invaders (excluding later vikings) as less than 20,000 total onto a population of over 3 million. Which is pretty similar to both the numbers of vikings and normans that came over. Still enough for most people in the country to have a small grain in them.

As for the thinking side, culturally the English really don't think about that kind of thing, the welsh and scots do a lot, outside a dubious right wing group you'd struggle to find and englishman who considered himself kindred to a resident of saxony.

If you go down to Kent west of the river Medway still to this day they call themselves Kentishmen and east of the Medway they're call Men of Kent. Ths goes right back to the saxon conquest when the Jutes-Kentishmen were pushed into a small corner of their county by the invading Saxon-Men of Kent.

The list shows which king was elected to the title of Bretwalda (high king), showing which kingdom was most powerful at any one time.

Ælle of Sussex (477–circa 514)
Ceawlin of Wessex (560–591)
Ethelbert of Kent (591–616)
Raedwald of East Anglia (616–627)
Edwin of Deira (627–632)
Oswald of Bernicia (633–641)
Oswiu of Northumbria (641–670)
Ethelbald of Mercia (circa 735–757)
Offa of Mercia (757–796)
Egbert of Wessex (829–839)
Ethelwulf of Wessex (839–855)
Ethelbald of Wessex (855–860)
Ethelbert of Wessex (860–866)
Ethelred of Wessex (866–871)
Alfred the Great of Wessex (871–899)

Becouse Inc tribes founded it, so, Incland-Inkland-Enkland-England

 I think you got the Franco-norman number totally wrong. and I would not put viking and normans in the same basket as if talking of the same pepole,the Normans have little or nothing in common with the vikings.  after the normans invasion, 1/3 of the british isles population were destroyed, they were either slaughtered or they died of famine and diseases after tha carnage, there is a reason why the anglo-saxon chronicle refers to the event as Doomsday. it is estimated nearly 200,000 normans, Angevin (from anjou) and people from lthe rest of france occupied the british territories. there was a system of apartheid where that minority would control the mass of of british population (and that would include the viking descendents) through a feudal system.

 I don't think that might be right, but on the tapestry of bayeux from a french POV the people on the british island were the " Angli" or Angles (or english if you want in modern term). I don't know how the angles called themselves. It is possible the island didn't have one name but many names for different region.  but after the invasion they were all collectively referred by the Normans as Angle, scots and welsh for the people of the region of England, scotland and wales respectively

[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl there is a reason why the anglo-saxon chronicle refers to the event as Doomsday.[QUOTE]

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles were written before the Conquest. The Domesday book wasn't so called till about a century after it was compiled, and the name seems to have started in a typically English way as a joke.

The historian William Lambarde wrote in the 16th century that the book was " to be called Domesday, bicause (as Mathew Parise saith) it spared no man, but iudged all men indifferently." 'Parise' (normally now spelt Paris) was a 13th century Benedictine monk and chronicler, evidently with a sense of humour.

 Nope, 1/3 of the English population were destroyed. The carnage was massive. Read the link below. Also the majority of the immigrants weren't Angevin but Normands and bretons. After the initial army, nearly 20,000 troops from all around France moved in England. And that not considering the merchants, entertainers and labourers that followed (I would estimate that to be in the order of 200,000 to 300,000 over the reigned of the Normans and Angevin). Initially the Franco-Angevin-Normands were segregated from the initial population, they would marry the English, there were no marriage and intermixing, there was two clearly and distinctive clas sin britain. Check this link out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/conquered_04.shtml?site=history_conquestlj_conquest - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/conquered_04.shtm l?site=history_conquestlj_conquest

Genetic studies I've seen are confusing. If you look at the Y chromosome, which passes only down the male line, it appears that modern male inhabitants of England are much closer to the Dutch and the Friesians than they are to the Welsh.

However, studies of mitochondrial genetic material, which comes only from the maternal line, have found the opposite. Englishmen and women, in that regard have more in common with the Celtic peoples.

Which of course points to a conclusion that an awful lot of children were being born of Celtic mothers and Anglo-Saxon fathers. Anyone surprised?

is this the return of the Nazi maps?

this thread has gone off topic, if you want to talk about superiority stuff, go to the appropriate forum.

What NAZI map, it is the distribution of genetic haplotypes throughout europe, asia and north africa. nothing racist here. Actually it is anti-racist, unless you are from connahct then you can claim to be a pure race. what the NAZI gonna say about their "pakistani" inheritance. NAZI ideology was based on Anthrology, which is a ridiculos method to identify races. physical appearances or phenotypes are pretty much influence by environment.

Becoyuse there is Saxland-Saxonia

So, it is England-Angloland

Originally posted by Maju What "Nazi maps" and what "superiority" and what nothing? Did you read what I wrote? Besides, the map is a perfectly valid reply to the previous post, which was precisely mentioning Y-chromosome genetics on a perfectly relevant discussion raised by another post (again not mine) one the ammoun of Vikings or Normans that arrived to Britain and wether or not they did some sort of ethnic cleansing. I was precisely trying to dispel such assumption. Please, read what we are talking about before censoring or whinning?

Exactly the map is relevent here. but the Celtic "Connatch" haplotype is also present in the Normans, Angevin, anglo-saxons. all the map shows is celtic haplotype is predominant in britain.

The Danes were known at the time of the invasions for being dark compared to the Saxons. They still are.

Which is what one would expect, no?

What was interesting I thought was the difference between the female and male lines.

i already said it before: what is this based? every individual has different of those haphlogroups or whatever, besides this has nothign to do with HISTORY, genetics are irrelevant to history because people are individuals, not some  60% this and 30% that kind of racial groupings, this IS racism, if you dont know what that is...i forgott, every person has thsoe pahplogroups which has a clear label on ti that says "me is slavic" and crap. please get ridd of those nationalistic ideas...