Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Your assertion and wiki-quote do not refute the point I raised. The Carolingian dynasty is not named after Ansegisel, who was of the Arnulfings, it is named after Charles Martel and his heir Carloman.
Which, if you'd bothered to read the wiki page* on the Carlingian line, you'd have known.
Charles Martel, who took over the Frankish kingdom, was the majordomo of the king's household. He did not become a noble (Duke) until after the last Merovingian king died and he won the internal power struggle in the Frankish kingdom.:

And if you had bothered to do a simple thing such as click on Charles Martels Father, then clicked on His father, then his father, you would know that Arnulf was Charles Martels, great grandfather, and you would have saved yourself a lot of time, and you would also have found what was meant by the founder of the Carolingians, being connected to the actual founder of the Empire, that Charles renamed, Carolingian..So simple.

Charles Martel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

Father Pepin of Herstal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_of_Herstal

Father Ansegisel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansegisel

Father Arnulf of Metz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_of_Metz

Svartalf wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter anyway, since the Carolingian line started with Charles Martel, who was neiter a Merovingian, nor a noble.
He only became a Duke after he had seized power.

Sorry to disagree with you, but being descended from Arnulf of Metz and Pepin of Landen made him part of the most distinguished Merovingian aristocracy, as high a noble as could be in that period and kingdom, and he was descended from a line of Mayors of the Palace, which is how he managed to govern the country in the place of the king.

You're not disagreeing with me though.

Martel was not directly descendant from the last Merovingian king, nor was he an actual noble. He made himself a duke when he had seized power, before that his father had also made himself a duke, but did not pass the title on in 714 when he died, Martel did not become duke until 718, while immediately taking over the role as majordomo in 714.
And yes the Pippinids and Anrulings were powerful noble houses in the Merovingian kingdoms, but they weren't part of the Merovingian royal line.

He WAS an actual noble from some of the most distinguished and powerful families, at that time, there's simply no way a commoner would have landed the job of Mayor of the Palace.

Svartalf wrote:How many times must you be told that THE POPE HAD NO DOING IN WILLIAM THE BASTARD CONQUERING ENGLAND AND BECOMING KING !!

The matter was one of private relations between william, Harold, and Edward the Confessor. William ciamied Edward had named him his heir and that harold was a usurper, and as was the habit in those times, he proceeded to prove his right by armed conflict, it being understood that the winner had god on his side.

It's also more or less assumed that William made up his inheritance claim, because he just wanted to conquer/rule England period.

Svartalf wrote:He WAS an actual noble from some of the most distinguished and powerful families, at that time, there's simply no way a commoner would have landed the job of Mayor of the Palace.

If you'd read my post, you'd have noticed that his father had made himself a duke, but that Martel held no noble titles until 718, 4 years after his ducal father died.
In reality Martel and his ancestors were much like the eunuchs in China; they held no actual titles, but managed over time to amass power at court and through that power became the real power behind the throne.

I must add.. I was asked by a user earlier, how i came to the conclusion that Arnulf was connected to the carolingians, and merovingians, and i replied, when did i mention Arnulf?. I was so sidetracked by discussing the origins of Norse people, and how Danes were influencial in creating Normandy, that i "forgot" the debate i was having with another user.

But i can assure you, as i have posted above, Arnulf was Charles Martels Great Grandfather

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Your assertion and wiki-quote do not refute the point I raised. The Carolingian dynasty is not named after Ansegisel, who was of the Arnulfings, it is named after Charles Martel and his heir Carloman.
Which, if you'd bothered to read the wiki page* on the Carlingian line, you'd have known.
Charles Martel, who took over the Frankish kingdom, was the majordomo of the king's household. He did not become a noble (Duke) until after the last Merovingian king died and he won the internal power struggle in the Frankish kingdom.:

And if you had bothered to do a simple thing such as click on Charles Martels Father, then clicked on His father, then his father, you would know that Arnulf was Charles Martels, great grandfather, and you would have saved yourself a lot of time, and you would also have found what was meant by the founder of the Carolingians, being connected to the actual founder of the Empire, that Charles renamed, Carolingian..So simple.

Except Arnulf wasn't a Merovingian or Carolingian.
And my point was the that the Carolingian dynasyty, started with Charles Martel.
So once again you're shifting the goal posts.
There was no Carolingian empire before Charles Martel.

Nevets wrote:I must add.. I was asked by a user earlier, how i came to the conclusion that Arnulf was connected to the carolingians, and merovingians, and i replied, when did i mention Arnulf?. I was so sidetracked by discussing the origins of Norse people, and how Danes were influencial in creating Normandy, that i "forgot" the debate i was having with another user.

But i can assure you, as i have posted above, Arnulf was Charles Martels Great Grandfather

And he was no more a Carolingian or Merovingian, than Victoria I was a Windsor.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except Arnulf wasn't a Merovingian or Carolingian.
And my point was the that the Carolingian dynasyty, started with Charles Martel.
So once again you're shifting the goal posts.
There was no Carolingian empire before Charles Martel.

That is true, but only in the strictest sense.

In reality, Charles Martel was, a Frankish statesman, military leader, Duke and Prince, and Mayor of the Palace.

was a Frankish statesman and military leader who, as Duke and Prince of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

The fact that he founded the Carolingian dynasty, in his name, changes nothing. It does not remove him from his Great grand-fathers loyalty to the Catholic Church, and everything he inherited from his Great grandfather..It actually means the opposite..It is becoming even more cemented.

Nevets wrote:Well, it's not really my say so is it.

It is the say so of the "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Domesday Book of 1086".

If you do not believe this, then perhaps begin a thread on why The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Doomsday book, is wrong.

Or, don't believe it. I'm not asking you too.

This would again be you only seeking out information that confirms your bias. You've found a book that confirms what you already think and have therefore concluded that it must be so. Which is as powerful and persuasive as creotards pointing at the bible as authoritative proof of God.

A single book in and of itself, is not authoritative, just because you happen to like what it says.That's not how research works.

There's no need to start any additional threads, this forum is littered with enough of your shit as it is.

Whether you like it or not, England existed as a Kingdom, with its own Kings, before William turned up and there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that being so. Found within the references attached to the wiki-links you have presented

Nevets wrote:The fact that he founded the Carolingian dynasty, in his name, changes nothing. It does not remove him from his Great grand-fathers loyalty to the Catholic Church, and everything he inherited from his Great grandfather..It actually means the opposite..It is becoming even more cemented.

Because you say so.
Or because its opposites day.

I hadn't realised it was opposites day.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except Arnulf wasn't a Merovingian or Carolingian.
And my point was the that the Carolingian dynasyty, started with Charles Martel.
So once again you're shifting the goal posts.
There was no Carolingian empire before Charles Martel.

That is true, but only in the strictest sense.

FIFY. Stop bullshitting.

Nevets wrote:In reality, Charles Martel was, a Frankish statesman, military leader, Duke and Prince, and Mayor of the Palace.

As I pointed out, he did not become Duke or Prince until 4 years after his father had died and after the last Merovingian king died.
He only became a duke, when he made himself one, after the last Merovingian king had died and he had made himself the effective ruler of the Frankish kingdom.

Nevets wrote:
The fact that he founded the Carolingian dynasty, in his name, changes nothing.

It does. It means there was no such thing as 'the Carolingian empire' until the actual dynasty was founded.
Similarly to how people in the 'Middle Ages' did not call it that.

Nevets wrote: It does not remove him from his Great grand-fathers loyalty to the Catholic Church, and everything he inherited from his Great grandfather..It actually means the opposite..It is becoming even more cemented.

Again, they weren't loyal to the Catholic Church. They were Christians.
They largely did whatever they wanted, without any input of the pope, let alone orders.

Nevets wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Nevets wrote:William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England.

Orly? Seeing you are so fond of quoting the Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, please link to the bit in it that claims "William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England". While i'm waiting for you to procure it, I'll chip in with this snippet from the Wikipedia's article titled List of English monarchs:

Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.[3][4] The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Note: Æthelstan died on 27 October 939. William the Conqueror was born a century later.

Slightly wrong. Whilst your wkipedia "Headline", does say that, it also explains under the Wiki headline, that Alfred the Great was King of the anglo saxons, and that he "claimed", to be King of England.

More distraction bullshit.

Your lying is outrageous. The wikipedia page clearly explains why Alfred is included, and there is fuck all justification in that page for you lying that the same applies to anyone other than Alfred.

Again, all this song and dance is to cover up the fact that you made a false assertion - and now you're properly digging down making up outright lies to cover your arse, but all it's doing is exposing you to harsher analysis.

Nevets wrote:Now Aethelstan was the same. Also an anglo-saxon king

Stop your fucking mind-numbingly stupid make-believe.

The term "Anglo-Saxon King" means that ethnically he was Anglo-Saxon, which no one is disputing. Factually, however, he was an Anglo-Saxon King of England.

Remember? Just like how I educated you about all the other ethnicities of Kings of England, like German, Scottish, Spanish etc?

Yes, you're talking shit and everyone knows.

Nevets wrote:But Alfred the Great was also allied to the Normans.
You have him to thank for the good old bible bash.
He introduced the laws of the Papal.

As usual, wrong and confused in equal measure.

Nevets wrote:Now Alfred the Greats legacy may be recognised as the beginning of an unbroken kingship of England up until this day, but it certainly was not solidified until William the conqueror removed the anglo-saxons from the throne.

Inane assertion that is fabricated entirely to pretend you have a clue.

Nevets wrote:Their kingship was not recongnised by the Normans

Both irrelevant AND wrong. If their kingship wasn't recognized by the Normans, then William I wouldn't have had a claim on the English crown. William I's legitimacy as the King of England is entirely predicated on the fact that there was a crown of England to claim.

Nevets wrote:But what was recongnised by the Normans, was the great work they done. King Cnut was testimony to this.

What the fuck are you rattling on about?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Sniping the context of my remarks, ie the part of your post to which I was directly responding, is not only misleading and dishonest, it is a violation of the FUA you signed.
You asserted that the settlement was created by Danish raiders and quoted a wiki sentence that explained that the area had been raided by Danes before the settlement was created.

I should not have to explain, that the Danish raids, preceded the final conquest.
There is no violation in me failing to explain that. It goes without saying.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except that they weren't, but it is irrelevant anyway, as my contention was to your claim that the settlement was created by Danish raiders, rather than being peacefully bestowed on Rollo and his followers by the Frankish king.

Ahem.. That is a misrepresentation of the ways of the world.
The Danish Vikings were terrorising the French aristocracy, make no mistake.
But they were appeased, the same all other barbarian leaders became "appeased".

Do you require a link for this?
Because it is self explanatory

But i can assure you, the initial conquest of Normandy, "was not" friendly, and it involved the winning of a battle.

He emerged as the outstanding warrior among the Norsemen who had secured a permanent foothold on Frankish soil in the valley of the lower Seine. After the Siege of Chartres in 911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo

But the Vikings had to be appeased, because they were now trying to conquer as far afield as Scicily

After the Norman conquest of England and their conquest of southern Italy and Sicily over the following two centuries, their descendants came to rule Norman England (the House of Normandy), the Kingdom of Sicily (the Kings of Sicily)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo

This is yet another example of how the supposed "Information Age' means nothing when it still requires basic skills not learnt on the internet to understand the information available on the internet.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
None of which proves that the Norman conquest of England was ordered or machinated by the Pope, or a continuation of the Viking invasions, or a Christian invasion of a pagan England. Or any of the other bullshit you've spewed in this thread.

I never ever said it was ordered by the pope, and if i did, then i done a damn good job of misrepresenting my own opinions.

You did, so you have only yourself to blame.

Nevets wrote:I believe a system was put in place dating back to Clovis I.

Which has little bearing if any on Rollo, never mind William the Conqueror.

Nevets wrote:The system was never reversed, and the Normans invaded Normandy,

Do you even read what you write?

Nevets wrote:and became infected by Catholicism, and political self interests, and became more loyal towards Mary, than Odin.

They did not become infected, they voluntarily converted. And they weren't loyal to Mary or the church.

Nevets wrote:
I do not believe the Pope orchestrated everything Illuminati style, i believe it was more complex than that, and Kings "real" loyalties being to varying degrees, mixed with their own best interests.

From the period of Rollo to William, the pope had fuck all influence on Normandy or England.

Nevets wrote:
I believe the Pope was over-all happy to allow the Normans, and Duke of the Duchy of Normandy, to go and conquer the previous Norman/Germanic incubants,

Again, Norman is not synonymous with Norseman, Viking or German. Again, the country that William invaded was England, populated by English Christians, not pagan Vikings.

Nevets wrote: as the new ones are even more Catholic than the first ones,

Shifting the goal posts again, with yet more rectal matter.

Nevets wrote: that have already done a damn good job in establishing the Laws of the Bible in England.

Again, already happened during Roman times and the time of Alfred the Great.

Nevets wrote:
And i must include, before i am misrepresented, how much this system was reversed in Britain "after" William the conqueror, and how much still remains in place, is a debate for a different thread.

It's yet another irrelevant red herring you're desperately dumping on the thread in a failed attempt to hide your successive failures.

Spearthrower wrote:This is yet another example of how the supposed "Information Age' means nothing when it still requires basic skills not learnt on the internet to understand the information available on the internet.

Yet you were arguing earlier that Norman is a time

Sendraks wrote:

This would again be you only seeking out information that confirms your bias. You've found a book that confirms what you already think and have therefore concluded that it must be so. Which is as powerful and persuasive as creotards pointing at the bible as authoritative proof of God.

But it is not authorative proof of God.
It is authorative proof of how England became bible bashed.

Please update your understandings in what equates proof, for what.

Nevets wrote:
Your error of 100 years, or 400 years, is unimportant.

This is completely wrong.

Of course errors are important when talking about facts. Errors and facts are antithetical to one and other.

That's why your blagging is counterfactual bullshit. That's why you've given up any hope of garnering a modicum of respect here - because people on this webforum respect facts, evidence, and honesty.

Nevets wrote:What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.

Irrelevant.

Nevets wrote:Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

Alfred the Great did not claim to be King of England, you're lying. Alfred the Great, at least in terms of the stories and legends around him, dreamt of a unified England.

Nevets wrote:

was King of Wessex from 871 to c.  886 and King of the Anglo-Saxons from c.  886 to 899. He was the youngest son of King Æthelwulf of Wessex. His father died when he was young and three of Alfred's brothers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

This is just trolling. Your source contains fuck all relevant information. to justify your contention - you're playing games Nevets.

Nevets wrote:Now as Hermit has shown you, in a post above where i replied to him, Alfred the Great "claimed" to be King of England.

More trolling tactics coupled with lies.

Nevets wrote:But Alfred the Great also introduced the laws of the Papal.

You sound like a moron when you say that: "papal" is an adjective, yet over and over again, you use it as if it's a noun. What this shows everyone who's not clueless is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, no. The laws of the land under Alfred were not Papal laws.

Nevets wrote:He was also allied to the Normans.

Citation?

No? Didn't think so.

Nevets wrote:
But anglo-saxon kingship was not recognised by the Normans.
That was above the station of the anglo-saxons.

You really are talking a load of shit just to pretend you weren't wrong.

Irrelevant and directly contrary to reality. The Norman claim on the crown of England is predicated on there being a crown of England which was created by Aethelstan.

Your insistent assertions are not supported by anything, and the quirky, juvenile grammar you're using supports the notion that you are just making it up wholesale.

Nevets wrote:You may recognise Alfred the Great.
Many modern day historians do.

Modern day historians recognize that Alfred the Great was a person, yes. That's irrelevant to everything, as usual.

Nevets wrote:I also do, to an extent, but i recognise it for what it was.
The implimentation of Papal law, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Once again, you are either incredibly thick of trolling.

Alfred the Great neither implemented Papal law, nor was subject to the HRE.

Nevets wrote:Yet, you, cannot get your head around how there is a connection between England and the pope come the crusades, and want to argue that England has nothing to do with the pope, and pope was nothing to do with British troops in the crusades? Are you serious?

I warned you about lying about other people before Nevets.

I have never argued there was no connection between England and the Pope. You're lying.
I have told you over and over that the concept of 'British troops' is anachronistic.
I have explained to you already how the Crusades work in terms of the Pope's role and the role of nobility in choosing to join the Crusade.

So once again, the conclusion must be that you are here to troll people.

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:This is yet another example of how the supposed "Information Age' means nothing when it still requires basic skills not learnt on the internet to understand the information available on the internet.

Yet you were arguing earlier that Norman is a time

Cite where I did so right now.

I will give you 10 minutes, then I will hit the alert button and ask a moderator to address your lies.

Given your behavior to date, scrutiny by the moderators is more than warranted, and I have a feeling they may even discover in that you've been here before in another guise, and that your motivations are to troll the membership.