Svartalf wrote:Maybe, but I will repeat myself, there had been saxon kings of england before that. and william founding a new dynasty in england is of no significance or relevance to anything else in this thread... I have no idea of what you are quite unsuccessfully trying to demonstrate, and I'm getting tired of trying to clean your rubbish.

But what you are failing to understand, is that i am not disputing that there was life on planet earth before William the conquror.

But Cedric I, has nothing to do with Catholicism, nor the Catholic Norman invasion of William the conqueror

is cited in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a leader of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, being the founder and first king of Saxon Wessex, reigning from 519 to 534 AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex

What is it you are arguing exactly?

and can you source for us what close ties william had with the pope? to my knowledge, english kings tended to have rather stormy relations with the church, to the point of having one archbishop of canterbury murdered in his cathedral, and eventually becoming protestants, declaring themselves head of the church, seizing all monastics assets, and executing, often at the stake any who would cling to the catholic faith.

and I'm arguing that you don't have proper historic knowledge and even less understanding of the context or relationships between various actors of the historical drama.

I''m reporting this thread for gong way off topic.

This is a bar.

Moderators please move he OT posts to the appropriate threads.

Svartalf wrote:and can you source for us what close ties william had with the pope?

I will create a new thread on the subject

Nevets wrote:

Svartalf wrote:and can you source for us what close ties william had with the pope?

I will create a new thread on the subject

You can call it "The Bishops Crook". Great name for a pub.

Ok, thread made, in the Christian section

Nevets wrote:But i was not arguing that he was the first king of England.

Nevets wrote:William was also the first king of England,

Again, are you fucking about Nevets?

Nevets wrote:

Svartalf wrote:and can you source for us what close ties william had with the pope?

I will create a new thread on the subject

Absolutely unnecessary. Your claims are here, keep your arguments here.

Nevets wrote:What is it you are arguing exactly?

BOOM!

I'm gonna call it trolling now.

I was arguing that the popes influence, spread to England in the Norman invasion, when Rollos descendant, William the conqueror, became the first Catholic Norman king of England, with allegiences to the papacy.

1) You made no such argument, don't lie.

2) You're talking shit again - previous kings of England were Christian and had traveled to Rome.

History isn't an exercise in making shit up.

Can you please make clear what your argument is Spearthrower, and why you think Cedric I has anything to do with Rollo, or the first Norman king of England, or the Pope?

How about you stop lying, strawmanning and fucking about?

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


The Persian language IS Indo-Iranian and always will be. Your statement was horribly confused. You are trying to contend that there is an association between Persian and Arabic because 'the language' was Indo-Iranian, whereas Arabic is not Indo-Iranian, ergo the supposed association you're arguing for is false.

Honestly, Steven, I think you're so confused you even then confuse yourself further.

The Persian language is about as Indo-Iranian, as modern English is old English, minus the fact that English did not suffer an invasion and have their alphabet changed, between old english and modern english

Not their alphabet but their language most definitely, by the Norman invasion in 1066.

Svartalf wrote:

and FFS, the Merovingians did not conquer the Franks, they were the Franks. and Charlemagne did not per se change the name of the dynasty, by all rights it should be called the Pippinid dynasty, after clan founder Pippin of Landen, and Pippin the short who wrested power from the Merovingians. but since Karl had been such a great king, later historians called the dynasty after him.

Small correction on an error I make myself from time to time.
The Carolingians were/are not named after Charlemagne, but his grandfather Charles Martel.

Svartalf wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Of course, Clovis had no allegiences to the Holy Roman Empire

It is pretty hard to be allied to things which don't yet exist.

you mean no longer?

No, Sendraks is correct. The exact/proper name 'Holy Roman Empire' is from the 13th century.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Svartalf wrote:

and FFS, the Merovingians did not conquer the Franks, they were the Franks. and Charlemagne did not per se change the name of the dynasty, by all rights it should be called the Pippinid dynasty, after clan founder Pippin of Landen, and Pippin the short who wrested power from the Merovingians. but since Karl had been such a great king, later historians called the dynasty after him.

Small correction on an error I make myself from time to time.
The Carolingians were/are not named after Charlemagne, but his grandfather Charles Martel.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that.

Svartalf wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Svartalf wrote:

and FFS, the Merovingians did not conquer the Franks, they were the Franks. and Charlemagne did not per se change the name of the dynasty, by all rights it should be called the Pippinid dynasty, after clan founder Pippin of Landen, and Pippin the short who wrested power from the Merovingians. but since Karl had been such a great king, later historians called the dynasty after him.

Small correction on an error I make myself from time to time.
The Carolingians were/are not named after Charlemagne, but his grandfather Charles Martel.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that.

Like I said, I keep mixing them up myself.