Bede, Gildas, Tacitus, Sidonius and others, they don't exactly agree or are all even contemporary. Much of the timeline is unknown too, some dates and timings are certainly incorrect.
There are some relative consistencies, some inconsistencies. But dates aside, most present a fairly similar picture. The hardest part is trying to guess at the contemporary ideas and thinking of historians rather than interpreting it as modern historians (or audiences) with modern methods and ideas.
That and separating out the religious leanings from some of them.
It seems unlikely the Saxons, Angles or Jutes came peacefully (at least a first).
They'd raided before quite a lot, being Norsey Vikingey types... but once properly hired they came over quite nicely (by comparison).
According to the sources I know of, they either simply invaded, or they were hired by the Romans in defence against other barbarians but ended up mutinying and invading anyway.
Seemingly, that was just the Jutes in Kent who got all rebellious... but only after Vortigern's son kicked off, which itself was only in response to them tricking Vortigern into giving them all of Kent. That seems to be the common tale of Hengist and Horsa.
I believe the Romans had some level of oversight or authority in said hiring, as Vortigern was a Briton but the Saxons were still described as Foederati at the same time as other groups and nations being 'foedussed' by Rome directly.
but there again, there are arguments over where Jutes even came from.
One would think Jutland..... you know, from the name, and all.... It was all about the same area, really.
We don't even know who was in charge in Britain after the Romans left.
Whoever could take and keep power, I imagine. Kings are spoken of, in the same way as are tribal chiefs, so I'd go with that as an assumption. Likely varied between areas.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's misspelt or corrupt though. Most of the Latin I deal with is corrupt... irritating...
Yeah, not helpful.
I find it implausible that Britons who lived in the most Roman areas, who were Roman citizens decended from Roman citizens for generations, all hated being Roman and welcomed being conquered by Angles and Saxons. If anything, those would be the people who would be least likely to welcome being conquered.
But who do they rule? What sort of people were these most Roman of Romans governing? Why did they kill Marcus and Gratianus, before choosing Constantine... and then later booting out his Roman magistrates, if they so loved being Roman?
The likes of Gildas speak of the Britons' self-indulgence without Roman taxation, suggesting that without Roman rule things went somewhat awry. Those areas most thoroughly Romanised would also be where their own political and military power were weakest, as they had previously depended so heavily on Roman rule... and more so as Honorius basically told them they were on their own now.
So on one hand you'll have those glad of some authorty to bring people back in line, while on the other you'd have those who never liked the Roman ways in the first place - Both prime supporters of Saxon rule and both in no real position to argue either.
Who said it was "a three boat force of mercs making just one attack"? An incursion can be anything from a single small scale raid to a full scale invasion by a dozen armies.
One of those commonly cited details, usually about Hengist and Horsa, but generally about any migrating Saxon ships is that they typically arrive in up to three longships, each carrying 40-60 men. This usually prompts debates at how such small forces supposedly militarily conquered the larger populations that outnumbered them by several to one, hence arguments for (largely) peaceful migration.
But in addition, this line was supposedly Gallia Chronicled for 409 AD, before Theodosius and still during Honorius, before Vortigern had even invited the Saxons as Foederati, so nothing to do with the migration at this point.
Those are indeed other words, since they're not the ones stated.
OK, so exactly as stated, "Reduced to the power of the Saxons" meaning what exactly?
What pegs this as proof of any Saxon violence, particularly in light of the supposed hiring of the Saxons by either Rome or the Britons?
Mostly paraphrasing existing sources. I'm sure they're all wrong, though...
You'd do a fairly good job as a writer for a later English king, writing history for the victors, but I think you're too obviously biased. It's too much spin, enough to be implausible. Good spin is more subtle.
Not my spin. This was Bede and Nennius, mainly, neither of whom paint the Saxons in a particularly favourable light but still are unable to peg them as hideously violent ravagers of the poor defenceless Britons.