Saxons Charge in Migrations Large Migration is a controversial topic in history, especially when it concerns the fall of Rome and the Middle Ages. It would be absurd to say that migration never happen, or that migration is not important in the “Grand Narrative.” Large migrations have large amounts of evidence and clear impacts. One great example of this is the invasion of the Saxons into the British Isles. There is evidence for this invasion from chemical analysis, linguistics, and historical accounts. Migration happened, and we have significant evidence from multiple sources that large scale migration occurred and had long lasting impact on the British Isles. Whether migration happened should not be a debate, it did. Various groups moved: …show more content…
This is, however, a problem in every historical analysis of this era. Those who could write were usually part of the clergy or nobility, and thus most of our historical sources from these times are somewhat biased. There is also the problem of time. Writers of these texts, like Gildas, wrote the actual accounts hundreds of years after the fact. The actual primary sources are varied, like how Gildas only cites a single letter. One should never accept writings as the whole truth, we must combine it with hard scientific …show more content…
Historical evidence-wise, we know that Gildas was somewhat biased, was born after the events, and lacked recorded primary sources. These are fair points, but let’s examine how valid these flaws are. Being biased against the Saxons happened because they invaded. While their motivations and acts may be misrepresented, this bias shouldn’t affect the specific account of the migration itself. Yes, he was born after the events, and yes, he lacked primary sources, but much of what he stated was from oral tradition, and having this source from stories and legends is much better than nothing at all, and, as is stated before, it wouldn’t falsify the act of migration