Posted: Mar 10, 2020 9:55 pm
This thread is created due to another thread going off topic.
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.
To begin, William the conquror was first Norman king of England 1066
William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became ruler of Normandy
And he was of the same house of Normandy, as Rollo
And Rollo
And Rollo was a Viking....
Rollo was also converted from norse paganism, to Catholicism, during his time in Normandy, which is not far from the realms of the Holy Roman Empire
Rollo followed in the footsteps of a number of barbarian kings, from other houses, to ally themselves with the Papacy, amongst the earliest being Clovis I
Now a little bit about the pope, and his influence on the crusades
And the second crusade
And British troops participating in the crusades
And also
Now i did not even know there was a valid argument against any of this.
I thought it was pretty all contemporary,
But apparently there is huge opposition to those assertions.
I fail to see how a link between William the conqueror and Roman Catholicism requires such proving, but apparently it does.
Or, perhaps there is a valid debate against William the conqueror being connected with Roman Catholicism?
It even says in this link here, William the conqueror was a "devout" Christian.
Is the validity of the source objectionable?
Needs to also be understood. William the Conqueror was not English. He was part on the Norman invasions that conquered England
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.
To begin, William the conquror was first Norman king of England 1066
usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman king of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror
William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became ruler of Normandy
He was a descendant of Rollo and was Duke of Normandy from 1035 onward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror
And he was of the same house of Normandy, as Rollo
William the conqueror, House Normandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror
And Rollo
House Normandy (founder) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
And Rollo was a Viking....
was a Viking who became the first ruler of Normandy, a region in northern France. He is sometimes called the first Duke of Normandy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
Rollo was also converted from norse paganism, to Catholicism, during his time in Normandy, which is not far from the realms of the Holy Roman Empire
Norse Paganism
later Roman Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo
Rollo followed in the footsteps of a number of barbarian kings, from other houses, to ally themselves with the Papacy, amongst the earliest being 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)
Now a little bit about the pope, and his influence on the crusades
In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
And the second crusade
The Second Crusade was announced by Pope Eugene III, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade
And British troops participating in the crusades
The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade
And also
The Third Crusade (1189–1192) was an attempt by the leaders of the three most powerful states of Western Christianity (England, France and the Holy Roman Empire) to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade
Now i did not even know there was a valid argument against any of this.
I thought it was pretty all contemporary,
But apparently there is huge opposition to those assertions.
I fail to see how a link between William the conqueror and Roman Catholicism requires such proving, but apparently it does.
Or, perhaps there is a valid debate against William the conqueror being connected with Roman Catholicism?
It even says in this link here, William the conqueror was a "devout" Christian.
William the Conqueror was a devout Christian. After he conquered the country he did what he could to spread the Christian religion in England. https://spartacus-educational.com/REcatholic.htm
Is the validity of the source objectionable?
Needs to also be understood. William the Conqueror was not English. He was part on the Norman invasions that conquered England