William the Conqueror and Catholicism

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#81  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:38 pm

Nevets wrote:
Hi Thomas.

I am going to read through your arguments. But as you insist on not seperating your writing, from my own,

Stop lying. I am separating them, through the inbuilt quoting system of this site.
That you, for some unfathomable reason can't figure that out, when anyone else can, is your problem, not mine.

Nevets wrote: i am going to have to go through it with a fine tooth pick, and do the donkey work myself.

You mean like I've been doing with nearly every post of yours in this thread?
The horror! :roll:

Nevets wrote: But as i do not believe you will come out with an argument, as ridiculous as Cnut was Danish, and Denmark had nothing to do with Normandy, i will take the time to do so.... Will reply later, once i have seperated your writing

Cnut was a Dane and had little to no contact with Normandy. That's not an argument, it's a fact. :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: 31087
Age: 31
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#82  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:41 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except Clovis wasn't a Carolingian, he was a Merovingian. And neither line pledged loyalty to the pope.


The Merovingian dynasty became the Carolingian dynasty

The Merovingian dynasty was thereby replaced by the Carolingian dynasty, named after Charles Martel.


Rest of your argument is dismissed.
You do not have enough basic fundamental understanding of the subject to continue this debate.
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

#83  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:42 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Cnut was a Christian Dane and had fuck all to do with the Normans. :naughty:


Normans are a peoples.
Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish people

Also, Normandy was mostly implimented by Denmark

The settlements in France followed a series of raids on the French coast from mainly Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

If you'd bothered to read the very first sentence of that Wiki page, you'd know you'd be wrong:
The Normans (Norman: Normaunds; French: Normands; Latin: Nortmanni/Normanni; Old Norse: Norðmaðr) are an ethnic group that arose from contact between Norse Viking settlers of a region in France, named Normandy after them, and indigenous Franks and Gallo-Romans

No mention of Danes, Icelanders or Swedes.
"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: 31087
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#84  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:46 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except Clovis wasn't a Carolingian, he was a Merovingian. And neither line pledged loyalty to the pope.


The Merovingian dynasty became the Carolingian dynasty

No they didn't. That's not how dynasties work.
The Carolingians became the new ruling dynasty and were descendants from French mayors and noblemen, not Merovingian kings.

Nevets wrote:
The Merovingian dynasty was thereby replaced by the Carolingian dynasty, named after Charles Martel.

Exactly, replaced, not turned into.

Nevets wrote:
Rest of your argument is dismissed.
You do not have enough basic fundamental understanding of the subject to continue this debate.

Nothing but blind dismissal.
FYI. I've a bachelors degree in history, am finishing my Masters and have already taught for three years.
You on the other hand have demonstrated time and time again, that you're the one who has no clue about the subject or the time periods involved. This further demonstrated by the instance where the very source you cite (Wikipedia) actually says the opposite of what you claim it does.
"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: 31087
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#85  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:47 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:False.
Norman is a specific historical term that refers to the mix of Vikings and Franks that originated from the newly formed duchy of Normandy in Northern France.


Norman is "not" a time.
It is a "word".

See it's etymology. It means norse folk

The English name "Normans" comes from the French words Normans/Normanz, plural of Normant,[14] modern French normand, which is itself borrowed from Old Low Franconian Nortmann "Northman"[15] or directly from Old Norse Norðmaðr, Latinized variously as Nortmannus, Normannus, or Nordmannus (recorded in Medieval Latin, 9th century) to mean "Norseman, Viking" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Etymology


The rest of your obfuscating gish-gallop of misunderstandings is dismissed.
Understand the basics first.
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

#86  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:59 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Cnut was a Christian Dane and had fuck all to do with the Normans. :naughty:


My goodness Thomas.
It was you that came out with this argument

But it was the Danish that established Normandy

Normandy's name comes from the settlement of the territory by mainly Danish and Norwegian Vikings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy


This is atrocious..Rest of your posts are dismissed, until such times you can show you have a grasp on the subject
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

#87  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 5:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nevets wrote: Again, the Romans already did this.

The Romans had already converted England to Christianity. According to Thomas

Then how come it took until 686 before the last of the Pagan kings were removed?

Arwald (died 686 CE) was the last Jutish King of the Isle of Wight and last pagan king in Anglo-Saxon England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwald


I would also dispute, that Arwald was probably not the last of the Pagan kings, and that the early Vikings version of Christianity, was skewed with a christian cross depicting Thoths hammer

But once again, with Bastardisations regarding British history, such as the Romans had already installed Christianity in Britain, the rest of your post needs to be dismissed for now.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 11, 2020 5:13 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

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#88  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 5:13 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:False.
Norman is a specific historical term that refers to the mix of Vikings and Franks that originated from the newly formed duchy of Normandy in Northern France.


Norman is "not" a time.

So, you either:
a. Are acting deliberately obtuse and therefore trollish.
b. Struggle with basic reading comprehension and/or basic English.
Nowhere in my post did I claim Norman is a time.
I said it is a historical term, as in a word with a specific established definition within the field of historical research.

Nevets wrote:It is a "word".

What part of 'term' do you not understand? :roll:

Nevets wrote:
See it's etymology. It means norse folk

No it means Northmen.
Norse folk would be people from Norway, except we know that the Vikings hailed from Denmark and Sweden as well.
And Normans specifically, refers to the culture/ethnic group that arose from the Vikings, Franks and Gallo-Romans in the French duchy of Normandy.
Etymology is not the same as definition.

Nevets wrote:
The English name "Normans" comes from the French words Normans/Normanz, plural of Normant,[14] modern French normand, which is itself borrowed from Old Low Franconian Nortmann "Northman"[15] or directly from Old Norse Norðmaðr, Latinized variously as Nortmannus, Normannus, or Nordmannus (recorded in Medieval Latin, 9th century) to mean "Norseman, Viking" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Etymology

Yes, the people of non-Scandinavian Europe mistakenly called all Vikings Norsemen, eventhough there were different kingdoms and fiefdoms where the Vikings hailed from all across Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

This does not change the fact that Norman, has a specific use in historical research and is not synonymous with Vikings or Danes.

Nevets wrote:
The rest of your obfuscating gish-gallop of misunderstandings is dismissed.
Understand the basics first.

Further transparent, desperate blind dismissal.

You have failed to demonstrate that my detailed refutation of your bullshit assertions, constitutes a gish-gallop.
You've failed to demonstrate I don't understand the basic facts, rather you've repeatedly demonstrated to not be aware of the facts, even when you cite them directly.
As such your accusations are nothing but a textbook case of projection. :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: 31087
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#89  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except Clovis wasn't a Carolingian, he was a Merovingian. And neither line pledged loyalty to the pope.


The Merovingian dynasty became the Carolingian dynasty

The Merovingian dynasty was thereby replaced by the Carolingian dynasty, named after Charles Martel.


Rest of your argument is dismissed.
You do not have enough basic fundamental understanding of the subject to continue this debate.

No, the Carolingians were nobles and high officials who eventually deposed the Merovingian kings.
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

#90  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 5:21 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No it means Northmen.
Norse folk would be people from Norway, except we know that the Vikings hailed from Denmark and Sweden as well.
And Normans specifically, refers to the culture/ethnic group that arose from the Vikings, Franks and Gallo-Romans in the French duchy of Normandy.
Etymology is not the same as definition.


So this is what we are down to? On a thread discussing how the Papal was connected to Norman kings of England, we are down to first having to establish, the meaning of the word Norse, and how it pertains to Denmark, which you say, it doesn't

Scandanavia is a Norse sub-continent

the Danes, Icelanders,[a] Faroe Islanders,[a] Norwegians and Swedes,[6] who are now generally referred to as "Scandinavians" rather than Norsemen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen


Denmark is in Scandanavia

The term Scandinavia in local usage covers the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia


I simply cannot believe, we cannot have a sensible discussion about the Papal, and the Kings, because it first needs to be explained what Norse people are, and what continent they come from, and how Denmark pertains to this
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

#91  Postby Sendraks » Mar 11, 2020 5:25 pm

Nevets wrote:Now this is why William the coqueror would be considered First King of England. Because, whilst Alfred the Great, was just a foot soldier, that rose above his station.


Ah, I understand. William would be considered the First KIng of England because you say so. Rather than the evidence which says otherwise.

I was also unaware that you were in a position to qualified statements about whether someone from antiquity "rose above their station" or not.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#92  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 5:33 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Clovis wasn't a Carolingian. The name comes from Charles Martel who lived several centuries later, when, all Western kingdoms were already Catholics.


More proof you have no grasp on the subject

Ansegisel was at the foundations of the Empire that would become known as Carolingian, Not Charles Martel, and he was a Duke, and Latin leader

Ansegisel (c. 602 or 610 – murdered before 679 or 662) was the younger son of Saint Arnulf, bishop of Metz.[1] He served King Sigebert III of Austrasia (634–656) as a duke (Latin dux, a military leader) and domesticus. He was killed sometime before 679, slain in a feud by his enemy Gundewin. Through his son Pepin, Ansegisel's descendants would eventually become Frankish kings and rule over the Carolingian Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansegisel


Please stop. Because you are spreading gish-gallops of disinformation.
It is horrific.
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

#93  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 5:40 pm

That statement is erroneous, the Carolingians traced their genealogy to Pepin of Landen, who was supposedly married to a daughter of Arnulf of Metz, though whether this is actually the case is not clear.

Furthermore, as per the Salic law, succession could not pass throught the distaff side, ergo, whether or not they are actually descended of Arnulf does not matter, as this was of no dynastic consequence.
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

#94  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 5:50 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That sentence describes how, before the settlement was created, there were a series of raid of Denmark.
It does not claim that those raiders created the settlement.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
Those settlements were a direct result of the king of France granting Rollo the duchy, as his liege lord.


Again, what is this? We already know how the settlement was created.
It was created when Rollo got handed the lands by Charles III

After the Siege of Chartres in 911, Charles the Simple, the king of West Francia, ceded them lands between the mouth of the Seine and what is now Rouen in exchange for Rollo agreeing to end his brigandage, and provide the Franks with protection against future Viking raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo


This had already been established

There is uncertainty whether Rollo was Danish or Norwegian, but they are the same Danish empire, so does not matter

Medieval sources contradict each other regarding whether Rollo's family was Norwegian or Danish in origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo#Ori ... oriography


Seriously, you need to research before debating
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

#95  Postby Sendraks » Mar 11, 2020 5:51 pm

Nevets wrote:Seriously, you need to research before debating

Advice you would do well to follow.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#96  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 5:56 pm

Furthermore, I've dug into Arnulf's ancestry, and while he was undoubtedly from the highest nobility, I've found no trace of his being descended from the actual Merovingian dynasty.
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

#97  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Svartalf wrote:Furthermore, I've dug into Arnulf's ancestry, and while he was undoubtedly from the highest nobility, I've found no trace of his being descended from the actual Merovingian dynasty.


Can you please show me where i ever mentioned Arnulf
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

#98  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 6:03 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Advice you would do well to follow.


I am not the one claiming Normandy has nothing to do with Denmark.
Or that Charles Martel was the founder of the Carolingian empire, in anything else, bar name.

I cannot even remember the other ones.

Oh yeah, Norman is not connected to Norse. It is a time.

Oh yeah, and apparently i think Alfred the Great did not exist.
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

#99  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 6:05 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Clovis wasn't a Carolingian. The name comes from Charles Martel who lived several centuries later, when, all Western kingdoms were already Catholics.


More proof you have no grasp on the subject

Ansegisel was at the foundations of the Empire that would become known as Carolingian, Not Charles Martel, and he was a Duke, and Latin leader

Ansegisel (c. 602 or 610 – murdered before 679 or 662) was the younger son of Saint Arnulf, bishop of Metz.[1] He served King Sigebert III of Austrasia (634–656) as a duke (Latin dux, a military leader) and domesticus. He was killed sometime before 679, slain in a feud by his enemy Gundewin. Through his son Pepin, Ansegisel's descendants would eventually become Frankish kings and rule over the Carolingian Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansegisel


Please stop. Because you are spreading gish-gallops of disinformation.
It is horrific.


You DID mention Arnulf, even if you did not notice it... plus, Arnulf is the only putative link between the Carolingians to be and the Merovingian dynasty, except his own links to said dynasty are more conjecture than evidence.

I'll be charitable and assume you didn't even properly read the wiki article you quoted rather the declaring you dishonest and a troll.
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

#100  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Nevets wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Advice you would do well to follow.


I am not the one claiming Normandy has nothing to do with Denmark.
Or that Charles Martel was the founder of the Carolingian empire, in anything else, bar name.

I cannot even remember the other ones.

Oh yeah, Norman is not connected to Norse. It is a time.

Oh yeah, and apparently i think Alfred the Great did not exist.

Well, you're claiming it was set up by Denmark when the best theories put Gongu Hrolf as a Norwegian.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest