Posted: Mar 14, 2020 6:15 am
by Nevets
Spearthrower wrote: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.

You do not need a source to tell you when the British Norman invasion happened.

Spearthrower 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.

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?

Wromg. I could not care the name of the person that initially invaded Turkey. The major point "and" claim, would be that Mehmed became the first Muslim to declare himself Roman emperor, after killing the current Roman emperor, and adopting his three children.
Could not give a hoot if he did or did not conquer Turkey. But some Islamist did.

Spearthrower wrote: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:

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?

Thats because i dont know the name of the person that conquered Turkey.
You care about different things from me.
A roman emperor got murdered. His three children, the three heirs to the throne got adopted by the person that had his father killed, and turned them in to Muslims, aswell as changing their names. That is my point.
It is you that knows the name of the person that conquered Turkey. Whoopy doo for you.

Spearthrower 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?

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.

Again. You dont need me to tell you whether or not Alfred the Great claimed to be King of England.
The fact that it is claimed he was, is not in dispute. Not by anyone with common sense, or with ability to watch History channel once in a while. What is there to argue? or prove? I might be mistakenly assuming you know those things already. And the quotes i provide might not quite be referring to, what you think they are referring too.
This list of kings and queens of the Kingdom of England begins with Alfred the Great, who initially ruled Wessex,

Spearthrower wrote: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)

Spearthrower wrote: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.

I could not really care. Maybe you care about dwelling on whether Clovis I relationship with the Pope should be classed as Loyalty, or simply alliance, but i dont. I am more concerned with the fact that Barbarians are beginning to become Catholicised, just like Alfred the Great did, and a Holy Roman Empire is being built, consisting of the Papal states.

Spearthrower wrote: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.

But according to your first post, which i let you off with, Aethelstan was 400 years before the Norman conquest. You then removed it and changed it to 100 years. And now its 139 years. I dont even know why you care so much about how many years it was, or what the name of the invasion was. I could not care. Catholics are Catholicising England. That is what i care about.

Spearthrower wrote: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

But you attribute words to me that i did not say. You said "You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England".
But.. I did not say that. Here is what i said "William the conqueror probably was the first King of England". Do you see the bit thaat says "probably was"...? That is really important. It is not the samething as saying "no one before William was".. it means "entirely" different things. But i am glad you are able to tell me...what my claims are...
Your claim is....

Spearthrower wrote: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.

But it had already been established earlier that there was no anglo saxon kings of England. The anglo-saxon Kings were referred to as "Kings of the English". This has "already been established", so i have no reason to keep repeating it.

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England".

I just assume you know that this has already been established. And when modern day historians refer to England of before 1066, they refer to England as England, even though it was actually "Engla Londe". I tried to make you aware of this about ten times, but you seemed unable to grasp the concept.

The earliest recorded use of the term, as "Engla londe", is in the late-ninth-century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

And also when modern day historians refer to Engla Londe anglo-saxon kings, they refer to them as Kings of England. Not what they really were, Anglo-saxon Kings of the English

But i am doubtful, that even now, you will grasp it.

You will reply, telling me what my claim is, and get it hidiously wrong.
And the problem is caused by me "assuming" you know certain things already, that dont need explaining.

But what i would advise you to do, is revisit the William the conqueror thread, and without rushing to make an impulsive reply, read the thread from start to finish, in order to "understand" how you completely lost the debate, and that "everything" you think i got wrong, had been explained and established already.

Good night.