William the Conqueror and Catholicism

campermon · **#401** by **campermon** » Mar 12, 2020 7:40 pm

Nevets wrote:

Which is it to be?

ooh!

I'll have a pale ale please. Your choice.

:cheers:

SafeAsMilk · **#402** by **SafeAsMilk** » Mar 12, 2020 7:47 pm

Man, you know what makes lentil stew even better? Freshly ground black pepper. Just magnificent.

You can have the IPA, I'll take a hefeweizen, please :cheers:

Nevets · **#403** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 7:53 pm

Thor Hvidtøl, on the house

Hermit · **#404** by **Hermit** » Mar 12, 2020 8:59 pm

Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

Nevets · **#405** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 9:06 pm

Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

ooo using sourcery now.
You are becoming Pagan.
Better watch, might get burned at the stake.

But nice try. However your own link has in bright green, "Nordsee Germans", as being the "main group" leading the invasion.
It was the same Nordsee germans that were behind the great conspiracy of 367ad, the lead up, to 410

But at least you are learning the roll that the Norsemen, had in freeing England from the Romans.

Fallible · **#406** by **Fallible** » Mar 12, 2020 9:41 pm

What’s sourcery? You should be banned for repeated misuse of the comma.

Nevets · **#407** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 9:42 pm

One more thing

Pope Adrian IV, who crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor, was English.

Adrian IV is the only Englishman and the only inhabitant of the British Isles to have occupied the papal throne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV

He became Pope after removing the previous Pope

As Pope, he crowned Frederick I Barbarossa, and successfully removed Arnold of Brescia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV

He was undoubtedly also a Norman

From 1152 to 1154, Nicholas was in Scandinavia as papal legate, establishing an independent archepiscopal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV#Early_life

Fallible · **#408** by **Fallible** » Mar 12, 2020 9:43 pm

Will you be finished soon?

Hermit · **#409** by **Hermit** » Mar 12, 2020 9:44 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

ooo using sourcery now.
You are becoming Pagan.
Better watch, might get burned at the stake.

But nice try. However your own link has in bright green, "Nordsee Germans", as being the "main group" leading the invasion.
It was the same Nordsee germans that were behind the great conspiracy of 367ad, the lead up, to 410

But at least you are learning the roll that the Norsemen, had in freeing England from the Romans.

Firstly, Nordsee Germans were not Danes.

Secondly, the area marked "Suebi" is where the Angles and Saxons lived before the Angles moved to what later became known as the Prussian province of Schleswig Holstein and the Saxons to the Oldenburg region.

Thirdly, the Danes did not live in any of those regions until later.

Fourthly, the Danes were Norsemen who migrated from - as their name suggests - the north.

Your attempt to equate Angles and Saxons shatters on the rocks of actual history.

Nevets · **#410** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 9:45 pm

Fallible wrote:What’s sourcery? You should be banned for repeated misuse of the comma.

It is when you use Sources to back arguments, instead of simply believing what one is told and arguing from ignorence

Fallible · **#411** by **Fallible** » Mar 12, 2020 9:48 pm

So the opposite of what you do then. No need for a capital s there. Honestly...you exhibit such atrocious grammar and you still possess the audacity to expect to be taken seriously?

What’s ignorence?

Nevets · **#412** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 9:56 pm

Hermit wrote:Fourthly, the Danes were Norsemen who migrated from - as their name suggests - the north..

More pseudo-intellectual nonsense unfortunately.
You dont really even need a source to work out that Nordsee, refers to the North Sea.
But i will provide one anyway

The modern names of the sea in the other local languages are: Danish: Vesterhavet [ˈvɛstɐˌhæˀvəð] ("West Sea") or Nordsøen [ˈnoɐ̯ˌsøˀn̩], Dutch: Noordzee, Dutch Low Saxon: Noordzee, French: Mer du Nord, West Frisian: Noardsee, German: Nordsee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea#Names

And where am i disputing that those that migrated to Britain in 410, were not Norsemen?

Thomas Eshuis · **#413** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 9:56 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since you've failed to provide evidence for just about any of your vacuous claims, I won't hold my breath.

Just take a look at the picture.
Dont be frightened

Now, when you open the link, it will show you, that the anglo-saxon raids, were conducted by Denmark.

If you accept, that they were conducted by Denmark, it means i win the debate.

On the otherhand, if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend you did not see it, it means i also win the debate, but you carry on in delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg

Which is it to be?

Your picture does not refute anything I've said.
There was no Denmark at the time, just like there was no Germany or England.

Thomas Eshuis · **#414** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 9:59 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

ooo using sourcery now.
You are becoming Pagan.
Better watch, might get burned at the stake.

More desperate handwaving. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
But nice try. However your own link has in bright green, "Nordsee Germans", as being the "main group" leading the invasion.
It was the same Nordsee germans that were behind the great conspiracy of 367ad, the lead up, to 410

Except it shows no such thing. All it shows are migrations by Suebi tribes on mainland Europe. There is no invasion of England on that picture.

Nevets wrote:
But at least you are learning the roll that the Norsemen, had in freeing England from the Romans.

We're still not interested in your fanfiction Nevets.

Thomas Eshuis · **#415** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 10:01 pm

Nevets wrote:One more thing

Pope Adrian IV, who crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor, was English.

There is no need for yet another irrelevant tangeant.
It won't hide your bullshit or failure to acknowledge it as such.

Nevets wrote:
He was undoubtedly also a Norman

From 1152 to 1154, Nicholas was in Scandinavia as papal legate, establishing an independent archepiscopal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV#Early_life

Except he wasn't. He was neither born in Normandy nor did he ever live there.

Thomas Eshuis · **#416** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 10:02 pm

Nevets wrote:
Fallible wrote:What’s sourcery? You should be banned for repeated misuse of the comma.

It is when you use Sources to back arguments, instead of simply believing what one is told and arguing from ignorence

No. Sorcery is an English word for magic. Sourcery is not an English word.
It has nothing to do with sources of evidence or research.
But then, by your repeated gainsaying of what your own sources state, I should not be surprised that you've got not clue as to what you're talking about. And therefore have to make up words. :coffee:

Thomas Eshuis · **#417** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 10:06 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:Fourthly, the Danes were Norsemen who migrated from - as their name suggests - the north..

More pseudo-intellectual nonsense unfortunately.

No Nevets you don't need to post more intellectual nonsense. You've long since proven yourself to be an idiot with a severe case of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to Medieval and Ancient history.

Nevets wrote:
You dont really even need a source to work out that Nordsee, refers to the North Sea.

Which is not limited to Scandinavia.
My country borders the North Sea, as do parts of Germany and Scotland.

Nevets wrote:
And where am i disputing that those that migrated to Britain in 410, were not Norsemen?

By repeatedly asserting that Norse Anglo-Saxons invaded England. :coffee:

Nevets · **#418** by **Nevets** » Mar 12, 2020 10:06 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since you've failed to provide evidence for just about any of your vacuous claims, I won't hold my breath.

Just take a look at the picture.
Dont be frightened

Now, when you open the link, it will show you, that the anglo-saxon raids, were conducted by Denmark.

If you accept, that they were conducted by Denmark, it means i win the debate.

On the otherhand, if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend you did not see it, it means i also win the debate, but you carry on in delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg

Which is it to be?

Your picture does not refute anything I've said.
There was no Denmark at the time, just like there was no Germany or England.

There might have been no Germany.
But there certainly was a sea fairing people in Denmark and Norway, dating back to between 300 and 400BC, that were using Viking vessels

The Hjortspring boat (Danish: Hjortspringbåden) is a vessel designed as a large canoe, from the Scandinavian Pre-Roman Iron Age. It was built circa 400–300 BCE. The hull and remains were rediscovered and excavated in 1921–1922 from the bog of Hjortspring Mose on the island of Als in Sønderjylland, southern Denmark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjortspring_boat

Whether the Norse people referred to themselves as Norse, or Danish, during 400bc, i could not really care.
Equally, i could not care about the fact, at 400BC, those boats were referred to as Hjortspring, and not Viking.

Language evolves.

But seems like the foundations of the British Royal Navy went back to 400BC

Thomas Eshuis · **#419** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 12, 2020 10:10 pm

We've had enough disengenuous gish-galloping.

This is the OP:

Nevets wrote:This thread is created due to another thread going off topic.
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.

[/quote]
At no point did you demonstrate that the pope send British troops. Not the least which because there were no British at that time.
At no point did anyone claim there were no links at all between William I and the pope. Or that William I wasn't Catholic.
At no point did you demonstrate that the pope was influential in sending English troops, beyond calling for a Crusade itself.

Hermit · **#420** by **Hermit** » Mar 12, 2020 10:10 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:Fourthly, the Danes were Norsemen who migrated from - as their name suggests - the north..

More pseudo-intellectual nonsense unfortunately.
You dont really even need a source to work out that Nordsee, refers to the North Sea.
But i will provide one anyway

The modern names of the sea in the other local languages are: Danish: Vesterhavet [ˈvɛstɐˌhæˀvəð] ("West Sea") or Nordsøen [ˈnoɐ̯ˌsøˀn̩], Dutch: Noordzee, Dutch Low Saxon: Noordzee, French: Mer du Nord, West Frisian: Noardsee, German: Nordsee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea#Names

And where am i disputing that those that migrated to Britain in 410, were not Norsemen?

You're all over the place. Let's recap what just happened and see if you focus for long enough to stay on course:

Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

Nevets wrote:...your own link has in bright green, "Nordsee Germans", as being the "main group" leading the invasion.

OK, already failing to substantiate your claim that the Angles and Saxons were Danes, rather than Germans. Please try again.

William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Ads by Google

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Ads by Google

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Ads by Google

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Who is online