William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#421  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 10:15 pm

Nevets wrote:
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. :coffee:


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.

No, there definitely wasn't. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
But there certainly was a sea fairing people in Denmark and Norway, dating back to between 300 and 400BC, that were using Viking vessels

Which is not the same as Denmark, which did not exist at the time. Nor were they Vikings.
There were also people living in what we now call Russia at that time, but we don't call them Russians, or 'from Russia'.

Nevets wrote:
Whether the Norse people referred to themselves as Norse, or Danish, during 400bc, i could not really care.

No, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't care about reality or the facts.
The Angle-Saxons were not Norse and Gaelic predates the Norse invasion of England by centuries.

Nevets wrote:
Equally, i could not care about the fact, at 400BC, those boats were referred to as Hjortspring, and not Viking.

Since it is nothing but yet another disingenuous part of your gish-gallop, it matters fuck all. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
Language evolves.

But there is no link between Welsh and Norse and the word Prydain predates Norse existence in England.

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

More irrelevant bullshit. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#422  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:15 pm

removed for now
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#423  Postby Fallible » Mar 12, 2020 10:16 pm

When do you imagine the game to have started?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#424  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
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.


False. that was "me" that said Germanics in those days were Danes.

Not you.

I put your name next to my quote my mistake, but corrected it.

Game over.

Vapid trolling is still vapid. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#425  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:17 pm

Fallible wrote:When do you imagine the game to have started?


Its ok, he either corrected the error, or, i misread
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#426  Postby Fallible » Mar 12, 2020 10:20 pm

Commas. You’re doing them wrong.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#427  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:31 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote: The Angle-Saxons were not Norse and Gaelic predates the Norse invasion of England by centuries.


You need to seperate the word anglo, from Saxon.

Anglo is a prefix relating to the Anglos.

Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo


The word relates to water, and fishing, and England likely means fishermans country

In any case, the Angles may have been called such because they were a fishing people or were originally descended from such, so England would mean "land of the fishermen", and English would be "the fishermen's language". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#Name


Thomas Eshuis wrote:But there is no link between Welsh and Norse and the word Prydain predates Norse existence in England


Now here is the killer.

"ALL" Germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#428  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:36 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Vapid trolling is still vapid. :roll:


Wrong, it is your inability to accept defeat in this debate, that is amounting to trolling

I repeat
"ALL" Proto Germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#429  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 10:38 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Vapid trolling is still vapid. :roll:


Wrong, it is your inability to accept defeat in this debate, that is amounting to trolling

I repeat
"ALL" Germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages

Oh yeah, please demonstrate that, and explain us why German and English are so different, phonetically and grammatically from Norse languages.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#430  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:42 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Oh yeah, please demonstrate that, and explain us why German and English are so different, phonetically and grammatically from Norse languages.


Because this is 2020.
If you want to debate British history after the formation of Scotland, then that is a matter for a different thread.

But the answer is, because you became Latinised
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#431  Postby Hermit » Mar 12, 2020 10:47 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
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.


False. that was "me" that said Germanics in those days were Danes.

Not you.

Yes, it was you who wrote: "The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German". Just like it's labelled in the quote. I explained that the Angles an Saxons came to Schleswig-Holstein and Oldenburg from the southeast (between the Eider and the Elbe rivers), and therefore could not have been Danes.

Your turn. And do try to stick to the thread of the argument.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4329
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#432  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 10:50 pm

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Oh yeah, please demonstrate that, and explain us why German and English are so different, phonetically and grammatically from Norse languages.


Because this is 2020.
If you want to debate British history after the formation of Scotland, then that is a matter for a different thread.

But the answer is, because you became Latinised

Not at all, we know old Saxon, High Old German and Low Old German, and they exhibited very specific differences from Old Norse. Norse is definitely NOT the ancestor of Westic and Ostic Germanic languages, even if it's in the same extended family.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#433  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 10:52 pm

Hermit wrote:
Yes, it was you who wrote: "The anglosaxons were Danish. Not German". Just like it's labelled in the quote. I explained that the Angles an Saxons came to Schleswig-Holstein and Oldenburg from the southeast (between the Eider and the Elbe rivers), and therefore could not have been Danes.



I am well aware the anglos were Danish.
And they were, as has been proven over and over.

All, proto germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


Have you ever heard of the Danish empire?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#434  Postby Svartalf » Mar 12, 2020 10:55 pm

You're well aware of nothing , you're a dunning kruger basket case who doesn't know the first thing about the matters he feels he can pontificate on in the face of experts.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#435  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 11:02 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Not at all, we know old Saxon, High Old German and Low Old German, and they exhibited very specific differences from Old Norse. Norse is definitely NOT the ancestor of Westic and Ostic Germanic languages, even if it's in the same extended family.


What you are saying is actually correct.
There are two directions Germanic comes from.
Proto, which is scandinavian, and Indo
The other form of Germanic, that came through Italy, was Indo-european.
Derived from India.
The Indos were everywhere at one time

The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


Latin also comes from Indo, which is evidence that there was possibly an Indo invasion of Italy at somepoint in history.

Latin (lingua latīna, IPA: [ˈlɪŋɡʷa laˈtiːna]) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#436  Postby Hermit » Mar 12, 2020 11:18 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Yes, it was you who wrote: "The anglosaxons were Danish. Not German". Just like it's labelled in the quote. I explained that the Angles an Saxons came to Schleswig-Holstein and Oldenburg from the southeast (between the Eider and the Elbe rivers), and therefore could not have been Danes.



I am well aware the anglos were Danish.
And they were, as has been proven over and over.

All, proto germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


Have you ever heard of the Danish empire?

Iron age? That's stretching heritage a bit too far to retain any cultural relevance, don't you think?

I need to take a break from reading your fractured arguments.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4329
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#437  Postby Nevets » Mar 12, 2020 11:27 pm

Hermit wrote: Iron age? That's stretching heritage a bit too far to retain any cultural relevance, don't you think?

I need to take a break from reading your fractured arguments.


Not at-all.
You have to remember, the Scandinavaens never got Latinised.
Only the ones that went to Normandy, did.
They still speak Proto-Germanic language to this day.
Their history did not get wiped out by an Indo-european conquest.


Norwegian (norsk) is a North Germanic language spoken mainly in Norway, where it is the official language. Along with Swedish and Danish, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language


And they know their history.

They have vessels called The Hjortspring boat, that date back to 400BC

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, which is Bronze age, let alone Iron age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjortspring_boat


And when i say they never got wiped out by an Indo language conquest/invasion, i mean at least not prior to the corded ware culture of 3000bc, which was, an indo language conquest/invasion

The Corded Ware culture[2] comprises a broad archaeological horizon of Europe between c. 2900 BCE – circa 2350 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


Between 3000 and 2500 BC, new settlers (Corded Ware culture) arrived in eastern Norway. They were Indo-European farmers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Bronze_Age
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 12, 2020 11:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#438  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 12, 2020 11:28 pm

Someone fed it after midnight. Shame on you.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#439  Postby tuco » Mar 12, 2020 11:40 pm

I'd prefer conquest to invasion. Like: "wiped out by an Indo-european conquest".
tuco
 
Posts: 15543

Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#440  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:41 am

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Gibber flibber whojammmafloop.

Nevets needs to find some magical way in which he's right because none of the historical evidence supports his position.


In what way whatsoever does this counter my claim that the Welsh (Cymry as known at time) came under Gododdin kingship, that was Pagan and Druid, with Wales/Cymry having some of their greatest poems and literature written by the Gododdin, before becoming known as Wales?

How does this support the argument of Thomas, who says, but, the Dain could not refer to Danes, because it was a Welsh word?

Do you equally fail to see a connection between, Dain, and Odin?

Or how about Edin burgh

Old Edina



I'm not interested in your latest diversion. You hop from topic to topic because you cannot support your claims and because you arrogantly and absurdly believe that reading a couple of lines of text on Wikipedia makes you a fucking expert.

It's beyond farcical.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest