Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: Waltheof


Guthric,Facts: Hitler ordered the industrialised extermination of 6 million European Jewish people.It is a crime of degenerate depravity unique to History. The Conqueror basing himself on their progressive, permanent settlements in Normandy since the late 10th Century, led, established and protected the first permanent settlements of European-Norman, Jewish people in Angleland in that island’s history and ended a 1000+ year old racist exclusion of them,which the Usurper never opposed, perpetuated by the Western Christendom’s big lie that they ‘killed’ Jesus the Christ. Hitler singled out Jewish people for death based purely on their race.Are you suggesting,for example, that during his suppression of the Counter-Revolutionay pro-Dane Northern Rising of 1069, the Conqueror ordered his commanders and soldiers to ‘discriminate’ between Angles,Saxons,Anglo-Saxons,Anglo-Danes in that suppression? He ordered the death of all those regardless of racial origin who opposed his just, revolutionarycause. In other words it was political not racial.If you do no know the difference then your lack of knowledge about the 11th Century is only equalled by your lack of it concerning the 20th.To pin the Nazi label on the Conqueror and by implication the Red also,since their were no political-military differences between them, is pure filth of the worst kind and an insult to the memory of those murdered by the Nazis.As another posting on this Chatboard states the recent Auschwitz Holocaust Memorial meeting was held in Westminster Hall which was built on the orders of the Red.That meeting was attended by Jewish community leaders as well as UK political leaders. We suggest you retract to restore dignity to your views but do not believe you will because it is clear to us that you have a whiter than white view of the Anglo-Saxon Revolution which insulates itself from facts such as : who were the vast majority of the thousands of slaves held by the Anglo-Saxons in the years after 451 if they were not Celts? Why were scarcely any Celtic place names surviving in Angleland in 1066? Why has archaeology down the centuries discovered such a tragic paucity of Celtic artefacts in Angleland compared to other ethnic groups? And who were the Bretons identified as formerly from Cornwall if not victims/descendants of Anglo-Saxon racist expulsions, who joined the Danes in an invasion of Angleland and were defeated by Egbert at Hingston Down in 838?
Comparing the Conqueror with Stalin is just bizarre. However,if he compares with anybody we would state that its probably Henry 1 because both beheaded Revolutions in the service of powers greater than themselves Philippe 1 and Western Democracy respectively. To return you from your quaint diversions to facts more appropriate to this Chatboard we would point out that promises from Kings to would-be successors may not matter to you but they certainly mattered to the Usurper. He was at the Confessor’s deathbed itching for his hand to drift towards him to designate him heir to the throne.And according to some sources Archbishop Stigand got a verbal recommendation from the dying man that the Usurper was acceptable and communicated it to him. When the Usurper went into that Witan he needed the stamp of authority from the Confessor along with his rule of the House of Wessex which we repeat controlled the Witan since the times of Egbert., to ensure the victory of that rigged vote.

CT Vice Chairperson, S. Walsh, Dinsdale (all in personal capacity)



Mar/14/2005, 9:41 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


All:

Uh, the majority of folks on this chatboard, as I say, manage very well to fit certain facts into their bizarre theories, while ignoring others. "Ehtnic cleansing" is "ethnic cleansing" regardless of who the "cleansees' happen to be. Therefore it is irrelevent that William allowed Jews in England(although Jews were widely used as moneylenders back then, since "good" Christians couldn't charge interest). On the other hand, William can very well be compared with Hitler and Stalin in this respect: He was responsible for the deaths of a huge number of people under his "watch", and, like Hitler, he targeted certain populations, simply because they lived in the same general area ss some of the people who rose against him in the year 1069. The devastation was so widespread that by the time of Domesday, there are huge tracts in Yorkshire that are simply recorded as "waste", and apparently the areas was still depopulated nearly 100 years later. Furthermore, this action was considered so gross an overreaction, that all the more or less contemporary chroniclers condemned him for it, regardless of "nationality"(if you can use such a term for those times). I suppose about the only thing you [do seem to have managed to get right is, that William was so feared that he was effective. And nobody could get rid of him, no matter how hard they tried.

Finally, one last thing about your "terminology". I have absolutely noidea where you got the term "Angleland", but it sounds silly and pretentions, since England was England, even in Old English. As for your capitalizing the word "history", that also seems to me an effort to purport to show that you know a lot more than you actually do(I am not speaking of Guthric here).
Anne G
Mar/15/2005, 3:14 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
thewilliam theredforum2002 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


Mousteriana/Anne G
You have gone into the kind of detail which Guthric does not which is why our posting asked him the question.He stated that the Conqueror was "up there with Hitler and Stalin" with none of the qualifications which you have introduced in defence of his position."Up there with Hitler and Stalin" means the Conqueror is the same as them in every respect ie including the most heinous crime in History(which means Global History fyi hence the capital H)the industrialised extermination of a people purely on the basis of its race."ethnic cleansing" is certainly not the same at all.
I put the question we put to Guthric and also you so the meaning is not open to 'multiple interpretation'. In your historical estimate does industrialised extermination=ethnic cleansing=the "Harrying of the North" 1069? Yes or No please.
Dinsdale (personal capacity)
Mar/15/2005, 10:10 pm Link to this post Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002   Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


All:

I guess whether or not you think William's activities in England were "right up there with Hitler and Stalin", depends on whether you acknowledge that there was a fair amount of "ethnic cleansing" going on. Granted, William's activities weren't on the scale of either Hitler's or Stalin's, becuase they couldn't be. He didn't have the technology to do this. But the scale of the activities seem to me less important than the kindof activities that were entered into.
Anne G
Mar/16/2005, 3:36 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
wulfstan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 32
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


I would highly recommend a little bit of study of the extant sources; it could save a lot of trouble. The chronicle of John (Florence) of Worcester indeed does place Edwin and Morcar at the Battle of Senlac (Hastings), and cryptically blames the loss of the battle to their desertion of Harold. Add to this the fact that other sources place them in the south immediately after the battle where they in turn desert King Edgar, and you have a clearer picture of what really happened.

Greg
Mar/18/2005, 2:48 pm Link to this post Send Email to wulfstan   Send PM to wulfstan
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


Greg:

I would dearly love to read John/Florence of Worcester on the subject. Unfortunately, he's one of the sources I can't seem to get my hands on. Sigh. Be that as it may, I know about Edwin and Morcar supposedly deserting Harold at Hastings. Whether they did or not, I wouldn't know.
Anne G
Mar/18/2005, 8:37 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
wulfstan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 32
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


Anne,
How do we know anything at all about this period? We have to rely on the sources. The Worcester chronicle is the only source that specifically mentions Edwin and Morcar at Senlac, but, then again, it is the only source that specifically mentions many other details about the events of this period. Why question this one point?

Greg
Mar/19/2005, 1:43 pm Link to this post Send Email to wulfstan   Send PM to wulfstan
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Waltheof


Greg:

I'm not questioning it, because I haven't read the relevant chronicle. And that's because I can't get hold of it. So I, personally, don't know about this, but I'm certainly not arguing with it.
Anne G
Mar/19/2005, 11:23 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)