Posted: Mar 13, 2020 11:12 pm
by Spearthrower

Nevets wrote:Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples.

Spearthrower wrote:But hey, in for a penny eh?

Let's just show some random ones:

The problem for you is how easy this is. I am going to just click on a random page number of your posts, and I can almost guarantee I'll find a perfect example.

Nevets @ William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Nevets wrote:
The Norman invasion really only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings, When William the Conqueror became First Norman King of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066

Your argument is that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the Battle of Hastings, and then you cite a source that tells us who William the Conqueror was but doesn't show that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings.

Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

Nevets wrote:
I never ever said Saladin invaded Turkey.

Mehmed the conqueror did, when he collapsed what was left of the Roman empire, and declared himself first Roman Emperor.

Mehmed II (Ottoman Turkish: محمد ثانى‎, romanized: Meḥmed-i sānī; Modern Turkish: II. Mehmet Turkish pronunciation: [ˈikindʒi mehmet]; 30 March 1432 – 3 May 1481), commonly known as Mehmed the Conqueror (Turkish: Fatih Sultan Mehmet), was an Ottoman Sultan who ruled from August 1444 to September 1446, and then later from February 1451 to May 1481. In Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi after the Hungarian incursions into his country broke the conditions of the truce Peace of Szeged. When Mehmed II ascended the throne again in 1451 he strengthened the Ottoman navy and made preparations to attack Constantinople.

At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire. After the conquest Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire. The claim was only recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Your claim is that Mehmet invaded Turkey; your source says nothing at all about Mehmet invading Turkey. Obviously, we can read past the anachronism there to the Turkish beyliks, but the point is that Mehmet was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire which even then incorporated most of modern Turkey - he was "Turkey" so why would he be invading it?

Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

This one was hilariously confused.

First you'd mistaken Mehmet for Saladin, then you claimed as above that Mehmet invaded Turkey, then when I pointed out that Mehmet didn't invade Turkey being Turkish himself, you responded with this:

Nevets wrote:
Nothing to do with it? What, do you think Muhammad just woke up one day in Medina, raided a caravan and decided to head straight for Turkey? No, the Holy lands came first

Saladin (/ˈsælədɪn/; 1137 – 4 March 1193), was the first sultan of Egypt and Syria[4] and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty. A Sunni Muslim of Kurdish ethnicity,[5][6][7] Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. At the height of his power, his sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, the Hejaz, Yemen and other parts of North Africa.

So even though we were talking about Mehmet and you were supposedly explaining to me why it's relevant, you launch off into talking about what Mohammed did (800 years prior to Mehmet in a different part of the Middle East and from an entirely different ethnicity), then you provide a citation to Saladin... :lol: ... sorry, it's still amusing... Saladin being 500 years after Mohammed, and 250 years prior to Mehmet, so what on Earth is the citation meant to have any relevance to? ... l#p2736263

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.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

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,

Your argument is that Alfred the Great was the first Anglo-Saxon King to lay claim to being King of England. You then cite your Wikipedia one-liner which contains absolutely nothing whatsoever about Alfred the Great claiming to be King of England - all that's there is a basic one line entry saying 'Alfred the Great is this dude' - and if anything, it says that Alfred was "King of Wessex" and "King of the Anglo-Saxons", so it offers no support at all. ... l#p2736274

Nevets wrote:
and we have "already" covered on a different thread, how the Carolingians were among the first barbarians to pledge loyalty to the Papal, through Clovis I

Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism ... %80%931054)

Your claim is that Clovis I pledged loyalty to the Pope (actually, you misused the term "Papal" again), whereas the source you offered to support that claim says that he allied the Pope. Pledging loyalty would make him subordinate to the Pope, whereas an alliance is not one of subordination. ... l#p2736139

Nevets wrote:The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York,

Your claims is that the Norman Conquest had to remove 'incubants' - presumably you mean 'incumbent' pagan Vikings - whereas you offer a source talking about Aethelstan defeating the last remaining Viking Kingdom which occurred in 927, which is 139 years prior to the Norman Invasion. ... l#p2736161

Nevets wrote:Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England.

You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England, and that specifically includes Harold Godwinson... and yet your Wikipedia citation quite specifically says that Harold Godwinson was King of England.

The same exact point reiterated but with an amusing twist: ... l#p2736177

Nevets wrote:
Even though the link below i show you, does say "anglo-saxon king of England", i have already shown you, that when you look deeper, you find that there was never an anglo-saxon known as anything else other than King of the English

Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England.

Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?

Honestly, I could go on and on - every page of your threads contains multiple examples of you doing this.