Let's talk a bit about "Anglo-Saxons". Official history tells us that, some time after 410 CE, some "primitive pagan Saxon barbarians" overran the former British provinces, coming from modern-day northern Germany and Denmark. The narrative goes saying that there elapsed...

...at least 30 (!) years from the time the Romans abandoned Britain since the "Saxons" came. Then, "impressive" narratives follow, full of verbosity and glibness taking us through a supposed hstorical trek of the events up the mid-6th century. But, does this paint the full pic?

Let's find out! Well, the problem here is that we haveonly ONE source about that: the Welsh (((monk))) Gildas, traditionally dated at the 540s. Gildas is the source for ALL others telling us of the period, alongside some anonymous chronicles that mention British affairs...

...sporadically and postdate Gildas, so he must have been the source for them, as well. So, it is only ONE (((Christian))) who tells us that "Saxons" came from continental Germania. But, you will say, they came from somewhere, didn't they? Well, I will redirect you...

...to Tacitus, who, in the late 1st to early 2nd century CE, in his "Agricola", described the Caledonians (inhaibtants of modern-day Scotland) as more similar to Germanic peoples than to Celts. The fact that we have an "Odin Stone" in Scotland that PRE-dates the Viking-Age...

...settlements there and for which no Celtic name sruvives indicates that Scandinavians or a similar peoples was there from a much earlier date. Even (((Bede))) admits that (((Columba))), a Celtophone who suppressed paganism in southern Scotland, needed an interpreter...

...to speak with the Picts, indicating that they were not Celtophone. The name "Picti" was an exonym applied to them by the Romans, and it is Latin ("the painted ones", as in "picture"). So, I would rather say that Germanic speakers were already present in Scotland by the time...

...of Tacitus and that they were the main bulk of those who moved south some decades after Roman rule in Britain collapsed. Other claims, that supposedly the invaders encountered a "strong christian population" also have to be dismissed. Roman England, in stark contrast...

...to Wales, was not an area where the Middle-Eastern filth made gateway before the 390s, and this gateway extended only in the destructions of temples and villas. In fact, the first (((missions))) in the British Isles were sent AFTER the Romans abandoned them, in...

...429 for England (Germanus of Auxerre) and later for Ireland (Palladius and Patrick). What was said to be "the oldest evidence of christianity in Britain" was later revealed to refer to pagan rituals. So, what (((scholars))) call "Anglo-Saxon invasion" was probably...

...a southwards movement of Germanic people already in Britain for centuries and maybe in response to the (((missions))) of the church and not because of a "power vacuum" after the Romans left. If they wanted just the spoils, they would have invaded in 410, right?

So, to sum it up: the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" was, in most part, a southward movement from modern-day Scotland in response to the church's attempt to proselytize the British Isles. As for the spread of Gaelic in Scotland, it is perfectly explained by the fact that (((Iona)))...

...extended its terrorizing and oppressing opertions in Scotland, until the Vikings administered some justice.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to comment on my speculations, after applying common sense to what you just read.

Dixi.