And now the history of the rise and progress of the Angles on the soil of Germany ends. Even if it can be increased there is but _modicum_ of information. Yet we could scarcely expect more. On the contrary, why should not the Angles have shared the total obscurity of the Nuithones, Sigulones, and others? What population amongst those with which they came in contact could have recorded their alliances, their victories, or their defeats? Not the Frisians, who were unlettered as long as they were Pagan, and Pagan until the tenth century. Not the Slavonians, whose spiritual and intellectual darkness was equal. Not the Romans, for reasons already given. There only remained the Gauls and Britons. But, unfortunately, in the eyes of the Gauls and Britons, although all Angles were Saxons, all Saxons were not Angles--so that the proportion of proper Angle history which we have in the Gallic and British accounts of the Saxons cannot be determined. The history of the Saxons of the continent has been stated to have been the history of the _Old_-Saxons. And up to the time of Beda, and about half a century later, such was the case. Hence, the rule is as follows--where we hear of Saxon actions by sea, the actors may be Old-Saxons, Angles, Frisians, Scandinavians, or Slavonians, and where we hear of actions on the _Terra Firma_ of Germany, and also in the times anterior to B.C. 800, the actors are Old-Saxons rather than Anglo-Saxons. In this case, except in Britain, we have little or no Angle history under the name of Saxon; and, as there is equally little under the name of Angle, we have, as has been already seen, next to no Angle history at all--_i.e._, _in Germany_.