| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Your Historical Heroes
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Your Historical Heroes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2010 at 20:30
I will choose two. Alfred the Great, king of the West Saxons and later styled king of the Anglo-Saxons. If he had lost at the Battle of Eddington 878, we in England would all be talking in Danish.
 
His grandson, Æthelstan, also king of the Anglo-Saxons who is regarded as the first king of the English.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2010 at 09:09
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

I will choose two. Alfred the Great, king of the West Saxons and later styled king of the Anglo-Saxons. If he had lost at the Battle of Eddington 878, we in England would all be talking in Danish.
 
His grandson, Æthelstan, also king of the Anglo-Saxons who is regarded as the first king of the English.
Perhaps the languages were not that different at the time (the two - three centuries before 1066)? Despite all the fightings the different saxon and scandinavian peoples were not that unrelated.
Are interpreters or translators mentioned anywhere in the sources? At least one icelandic (Snorri) mentions direct unhindered (though  hostile) conversation between local northenglish peasant and norwegian warrior.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2010 at 10:51
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

I will choose two. Alfred the Great, king of the West Saxons and later styled king of the Anglo-Saxons. If he had lost at the Battle of Eddington 878, we in England would all be talking in Danish.
 
His grandson, Æthelstan, also king of the Anglo-Saxons who is regarded as the first king of the English.
 
The Anglo-Saxons weren't English. English is a much broader concept and an English nationality doesn't really emerge until the thirteenth century. 
 
And after all, the Danes did take over the country later, and we still don't talk Danish, even in Newcastle.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2010 at 14:56
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

I will choose two. Alfred the Great, king of the West Saxons and later styled king of the Anglo-Saxons. If he had lost at the Battle of Eddington 878, we in England would all be talking in Danish.
 
His grandson, Æthelstan, also king of the Anglo-Saxons who is regarded as the first king of the English.
 
The Anglo-Saxons weren't English. English is a much broader concept and an English nationality doesn't really emerge until the thirteenth century. 
 
And after all, the Danes did take over the country later, and we still don't talk Danish, even in Newcastle.
 
 
 
Quie wrong. The concept, or idea of the English language or Englishness can be traced back to Bede writing in 731 when he wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. King Alfred himself regarded the language he spoke and wrote as English or Englisc. In one charter he styled himself Rex Anglorum, although his usual title in charters was Angol Saxonum rex.
 
His son and successor, Edward, also on occasion used the term in charters as Rex Anglorum, and by the time of Athelstan, 925 onwards, the term Rex Anglorum, meaning King of the English, was quite common. Indeed, Edgar in 975 was called Engla cyning in the old English language.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2010 at 18:49
If you're prepared to translate Rex Anglorum as King of the English, you can claim anything.
 
The point about the name used for the language is better taken, but neither the language nor the people emerged as a distinct group on the same basis as today's language and people until the assimilation of French in the one case and the Normans and Danes in the other, and both needed a healthy contribution from the Brythonic peoples.
 
The replacement of St Edward by St George as the country's patron saint is a not unreasonable way of marking the change (though it came a little late), especially since it took place in the reign of Edward III, the first King of England to address Parliament in English.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2010 at 19:34
The term Rex Anglorum was used by these early Anglo-Saxon kings to stress something more, for instance, than just king of the West Saxons or king of the Mercians. In fact King Offa of the Mercians used the term on a few occasions. He would have been stressing his overlordship of the English, and so likewise did the later kings such as Edward known as the "Elder" and his successors. That is what historians believe anyway.
 
Perhaps the defining moment when the kingdom of the English actually came into being was on the blood soaked battlefield of Brunanburh in the year 937. That great battle saw King Æthelstan assume direct control over all four of the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia, as well as de facto control over all of Britain, hence his title in charters of Rex Anglorum (and) Rex totius Brittanniae.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 02:49
Just a little language detail here, Rex Anglorum does not translate as "king of England" but instead as "king of the Angles", and as gcle underscored, if you appeal to The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles therein you would find reference to Alfred as king of all the Angelcyn not subject to the Danes. In terms of a territorial England despite the interlude of Edred and the apogee of his jurisdiction in AD 954, one would then have to recognize why Ethelred earned the sobriquet of "the Unready"! In a way, one must then recognize that as a political unit, the first England with a king calling for loyalty of all is Edward the Confessor, whose sobriquet rather than appealing to "first of the name" is powerful evidence that a political entity apart from outside loyalties comes with William the Conqueror, whose jurisdiction derived from this anomalous Edward. As for the rest, the sense of Englishness is a truly Plantagenet phenomenon.
 
Just one man's opinion but hey it does permit an understanding of just why England emerged under the shadow of a distended "France". Why one might argue that were it not for the French, an English identity might have never surfaced.Evil Smile


Edited by drgonzaga - 26 Apr 2010 at 02:49
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 09:24
Aren't you just debating what the word "English" should mean? Everyone has a sense of identity that changes with time, we can use one word or several to encompass it. The Anglo-Saxon identity when they first crossed the North Sea was not the same as that of their descendants centuries or a millenium later, so you might easily argue the Anglo-Saxons were not "English" if by "English" is meant the exact sense of Englishness as construed at a later point, but you might just as well argue that since one form of Englishness sprang from another it's all part of the English identity. At the least you could never separate the Anglo-Saxons from the English identity, considering their fundamental impact on the linguistic, cultural and political heritage of the later English.
 
Of course the English identity (or one of them Wink) arose in opposition to an alternative, the French. The whole point of identity seems to be enforcing a sense of belonging in uniformity and opposition to an undesirable rival identity. This is why it's been said that Muhammed created Europe.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 11:10
The poiint is that the peoples inhabiting the territory now known as England did not share or recognise a common identity, distinct from others, until it developed during the later 13th/14th centuries. Nor for that matter did they share a common language until more or less the same point in time.
 
Granted that the Germanic word 'Englisc' or something similar existed before the Conquest, it referred only to the language(s) spoken by the Germanic settlers, not the hybrid language that eventually merged the three basic influences: Germanic (including Danish), Brython, and French, and that foreshadows modern English.
 
Using 'English' to refer to the inhabitants before that is rather like using 'Spanish' to refer to the inhabitants of Iberia in the same period.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 12:50
Indeed, I was merely trying to say that since all these terms are plastic - just look at how "Englisc" was used as opposed to "English" today - there is no reason why an "English" identity shouldn't also encompass its origins even if it these weren't unitary or identical to a later conception. It's not necessary for the contemporaries to understand their place in the construct for the construct to be useful.
 
Also it cannot be said the Anglo-Saxon kingdom(s) did not have a sense of itself as different from its Celtic, Scandinavian and Frankish neighbours. It emerges quite clearly from the primary sources all these peoples were considered Others with differing languages, religion and customs. Northumbria may have been different from Wessex, but they considered each other closer than with the aforementioned Others, and you need a name for that kind of shared identity, whether you want to call it English or Anglo-Saxon doesn't matter to a historian.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 16:19
My point was that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms DID have a sense of themselves as different from their neighbours. But those neighours were the people it shared the country with. When you talk about 'England' or the 'English' in the early middle ages you are implicitly suggesting that one nation/people occupied the whole country. It didn't. and, as you rightly point out, the Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as different from the rest.
 
There is a similar situation as I suggested in Spain, and another in France. The Franks are not the French. You also get into a similar muddle in trying to call the inhabitants of the medieval Netherlands 'Dutch', though it isn't quite the same since that country split up later. 
 
Calling it English should matter to a historian, because it muddles an already complicated situation.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 16:56
Off the top of my head and without digging into books in order to sound somewhat knowledgeable

In no particular order are:

WAR/PEACE
- Crazy Horse
- Lincoln
- Washington
- Hannibal
- Genghis
- Alp Aslan
- First ten Ottoman Sultans kicked ass
- Ataturk (every indoctrinated card carrying Turk would and should list him)

Literature, arts and sport
- Twain
- Robert E. Howard
- William Glasser MD
- Ali  'Float like a butterfly...'
- Howe
- Magic
- Montana

 ...more to come later
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 19:52
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

My point was that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms DID have a sense of themselves as different from their neighbours. But those neighours were the people it shared the country with. When you talk about 'England' or the 'English' in the early middle ages you are implicitly suggesting that one nation/people occupied the whole country. It didn't. and, as you rightly point out, the Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as different from the rest.
 
There is a similar situation as I suggested in Spain, and another in France. The Franks are not the French. You also get into a similar muddle in trying to call the inhabitants of the medieval Netherlands 'Dutch', though it isn't quite the same since that country split up later. 
 
Calling it English should matter to a historian, because it muddles an already complicated situation.
 
The actual point I was making was that the concept or idea of Englishness was there at the time of Bede. As he wrote: " There are in Britain today five languages and four nations: English, British, Scots, and Picts; each of these have their own language but are all united in their study of God`s scriptures by that fifth language, Latin."
 
To Bede and his contemporary readers this was a self evident truth. He was in no doubt that he spoke Englisc: English. Are we then to argue with Bede?
 
The term "Rex Anglorum" used by later Anglo-Saxon kings would have meant "King of the English". If the term, however, had been used by earlier Northumbrian monarchs, it would, perhaps, have meant "King of the Angles", purely because the Northumbrians were actually Angles.
However, even in earlier times when the kings of the Northumbrians claimed the title" Bretwalda" ( Overlord of Britain, or wide ruler) they could well have regarded the title "Rex Anglorum" to be seen in a wider context: ruler of all the English speaking peoples of Britain. 
 
PS edited in error, subsequently restored. My apologies. (I did an 'edit post' instead of a 'quote'.)


Edited by gcle2003 - 26 Apr 2010 at 20:30
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Apr 2010 at 20:27
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

My point was that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms DID have a sense of themselves as different from their neighbours. But those neighours were the people it shared the country with. When you talk about 'England' or the 'English' in the early middle ages you are implicitly suggesting that one nation/people occupied the whole country. It didn't. and, as you rightly point out, the Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as different from the rest.
 
There is a similar situation as I suggested in Spain, and another in France. The Franks are not the French. You also get into a similar muddle in trying to call the inhabitants of the medieval Netherlands 'Dutch', though it isn't quite the same since that country split up later. 
 
Calling it English should matter to a historian, because it muddles an already complicated situation.
 
The actual point I was making was that the concept or idea of Englishness was there at the time of Bede. As he wrote: " There are in Britain today five languages and four nations: English, British, Scots, and Picts; each of these have their own language but are all united in their study of God`s scriptures by that fifth language, Latin."
He left out Danish. I've been accepting that Bede and others referred to the more-or-less-common language of the Germanic peoples as 'English' or something similar. But as he points out it wasn't a unifying language in Britain, the several peoples of which had their own languages, And all of them shared the territory now known as England. That remained true even after the consolidation of the kingdom by later Anglo-Saxons and Danes, and was of course worsened by the Conquest.
 
They only began to see themselves as a unified people with a common language at the time I suggested. And it is that unified people and that common language that should be called English, because before then no such people existed.
Quote
 
To Bede and his contemporary readers this was a self evident truth. He was in no doubt that he spoke Englisc: English. Are we then to argue with Bede?
Yes. Why not? Bede had an interest in the Anglo-Saxon supremacy.
Quote  
The term "Rex Anglorum" used by later Anglo-Saxon kings would have meant "King of the English". If the term, however, had been used by earlier Northumbrian monarchs, it would, perhaps, have meant "King of the Angles", purely because the Northumbrians were actually Angles.
It still meant King of the Angles.
Quote
However, even in earlier times when the kings of the Northumbrians claimed the title" Bretwalda" ( Overlord of Britain, or wide ruler) they could well have regarded the title "Rex Anglorum" to be seen in a wider context: ruler of all the English speaking peoples of Britain. 
Reading 'Bretwalda' as 'overlord of Britain' means assuming the Anglo-Saxon kings that the title was used to refer to were seen as ruling over all Britain, a claim that even the Romans never made, and would happen until 1603.
 
All it can logically mean is 'broad ruler' - 'overlord' (cf Luxembourg's 'bredeweg'  'broadway'). It's worth a note that Bede doesn't use the term but mentions the same kkings as having some degree of 'imperium' - overlordship.
 
And the way it's attributed in the Chronicle makes it look like a piece of anti-Mercian propaganda. (Which Bede, anti-Mercian as he was, could well also have been guilty of.) 
 
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2010 at 01:39
Darius the Great
Cyrus the Great
Xerxes I
Vladimir Lenin
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2010 at 14:20
To caarry responsibility for the slaughter, maiming, and enslavement of others can hardly be described as "heroic"...but then there has always been a fine line between fame and infamy but such should not be confused for the heroic.
 
The hero must always display altruism anything else is but a manifestation of selfishness.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2010 at 19:32
I will recapitulate my views on Englishness, when it began, and when the kingdom of the English came into being.
 
Bede was aware of the old English language and the idea of Englishness in 731, and the idea would have pre-dated him by a generation or so. Indeed, as I poited out in an earlier post, he wrote about it.
 
Now the idea of an English kingdom began to germinate during the Reign of King Alfred. He styled himself a few times in charters as Rex Anglorum, and his loose confederation of Angelcynn was beginning to take on a geographical dimension. This idea of a  kingdom of the English continued to grow during the reigns of his succcessors. Edward, his son, and the following kings, Æthelstan, Edmund, and Edgar all used the term Rex anglorum. It meant explicitly, and with no ambiguity, "King of the English". The context in which the term was used proves that.
 
In fact EdmundÆthelstan`s successor, was described as Cyning. Engla þeoden in 942, and Edgar was described as Eadgar, Engla cyning in the year 975. Actual proof that they regared themselves as rulers of the kingdom of the English. Here is a quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles regarding Edgar`s death:
 
"Here departed Edgar, ruler of the English, friend of the West Saxons, and protector of the Mercians." More proof that others were aware of an English kingdom in existence.
 
If you, gcle2003, wish to argue with Bede, with the scribes of Anglo-Saxon charters, with the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and also with a host of modern historians, then you, seemingly, must be blessed with more perception and knowledge than all of them put together.
 
I rest my case.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2010 at 03:45
Nice try, but the quote hardly constitutes evidence for a Kingdom of England in the pages of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum given that the preface to this composition is dedicated to Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria, and if one is honest it is a history of the Church and not any ruler or kingdom, all of whom enter in passing with reference to pastoral work. Now, as to your appeal to authority, Wulfstan, kindly cite any you might wish who assert that a Kingdom of England was a uniform political entity in the 9th century much less the first half of the 8th century when Bede scribbled away in his Northumbrian retreat!

Edited by drgonzaga - 28 Apr 2010 at 03:45
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2010 at 04:52
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Nice try, but the quote hardly constitutes evidence for a Kingdom of England in the pages of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum given that the preface to this composition is dedicated to Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria, and if one is honest it is a history of the Church and not any ruler or kingdom, all of whom enter in passing with reference to pastoral work. Now, as to your appeal to authority, Wulfstan, kindly cite any you might wish who assert that a Kingdom of England was a uniform political entity in the 9th century much less the first half of the 8th century when Bede scribbled away in his Northumbrian retreat!
 
If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I was not claiming that there existed an English kingdom during the time of Bede. I stated that Bede was aware of the idea of Englishness. As to authority, here is a short list  of books consulted which state the kingdom of the English existed in the 9th and 10th centuies:
 
The Age of Athelstan: Paul Hill
 
Mercia: Sarah Zaluckyj
 
An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England: David Hill
 
The Earliest English Kings: D. P. Kirby
 
Edward The Elder: Nick Higham
 
All written by eminent historians. There are other books I consulted if you wish to know about them. 
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2010 at 05:13
Does not Professor Kirby himself admit the "Problem of Nomenclature" on page 20 of The Earliest English Kings (1991)? The heptarchy does not an England make.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2010 at 12:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

To caarry responsibility for the slaughter, maiming, and enslavement of others can hardly be described as "heroic"...but then there has always been a fine line between fame and infamy but such should not be confused for the heroic.
 
The hero must always display altruism anything else is but a manifestation of selfishness.
 
Altruism is for the blind and the fanatic. Self-interest is real, it is rational and it needs no confirmation from metaphysical dogma. A hero is he who is able to employ his wisdom and power to his own best interest while disregarding everything else. Altruism is not without value, but only as a tool to be employed when it is purposeful.
 
From my POV it's not important whether a hero carries responsibility for slaughter, maiming and enslavement, but whether these activities served his agenda. If he assessed it to be so, carried them out and was proven right, well then he deserves fame, but if he went through all that trouble and it turned out to damage his position, then he earned infamy.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2010 at 19:16
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Does not Professor Kirby himself admit the "Problem of Nomenclature" on page 20 of The Earliest English Kings (1991)? The heptarchy does not an England make.
 
And your point is.....? Could you elaborate, explain a little more in depth what your point is?
 
In the chapter of the book you mention, Kirby is disscussing whether or not the names of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, or some of them, was ecclesiastical in origin.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2010 at 01:47
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Does not Professor Kirby himself admit the "Problem of Nomenclature" on page 20 of The Earliest English Kings (1991)? The heptarchy does not an England make.
 
And your point is.....? Could you elaborate, explain a little more in depth what your point is?
 
In the chapter of the book you mention, Kirby is disscussing whether or not the names of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, or some of them, was ecclesiastical in origin.
 
My point is quite clear, Angleland is not synomymous for England and most certainly not at any time in the 10th century. How Church Latin handled matters in terms of hierarchical identities vis a vis the varying groups simply can not be employed as a foil for the "English" people or an "English" state. Even in your quote pertinent to Athelstan no possibility exists for sensing "England" when the juxtaposition of West Saxons and Mercians is clearly asserted. So far, each and every assertion must carry a heavy dose of Arthurian romance for its swallowing. Both gcle and myself find that sense and not sensibility rules here.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2010 at 01:49
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Altruism is for the blind and the fanatic. Self-interest is real, it is rational and it needs no confirmation from metaphysical dogma. A hero is he who is able to employ his wisdom and power to his own best interest while disregarding everything else. Altruism is not without value, but only as a tool to be employed when it is purposeful.
 
From my POV it's not important whether a hero carries responsibility for slaughter, maiming and enslavement, but whether these activities served his agenda. If he assessed it to be so, carried them out and was proven right, well then he deserves fame, but if he went through all that trouble and it turned out to damage his position, then he earned infamy.
 
Niccolo is that you?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2010 at 19:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Does not Professor Kirby himself admit the "Problem of Nomenclature" on page 20 of The Earliest English Kings (1991)? The heptarchy does not an England make.
 
And your point is.....? Could you elaborate, explain a little more in depth what your point is?
 
In the chapter of the book you mention, Kirby is disscussing whether or not the names of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, or some of them, was ecclesiastical in origin.
 
My point is quite clear, Angleland is not synomymous for England and most certainly not at any time in the 10th century. How Church Latin handled matters in terms of hierarchical identities vis a vis the varying groups simply can not be employed as a foil for the "English" people or an "English" state. Even in your quote pertinent to Athelstan no possibility exists for sensing "England" when the juxtaposition of West Saxons and Mercians is clearly asserted. So far, each and every assertion must carry a heavy dose of Arthurian romance for its swallowing. Both gcle and myself find that sense and not sensibility rules here.
 
So you too ignore what Bede and the old chroniclers wrote and, indeed, what eminent historians teach. Remarkable! Seeminglyyou breath the rarified atmosphere of Mount Olympus and have more knowledge than all of them. Either that or you like to argue just for the sake of it.    
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2010 at 09:34
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Niccolo is that you?
 
It's not for nothing he's one of my "heroes". Men like Machiavelli represent the utmost height to which the human intellect can aspire; the least muddled and most dispassionate perception of reality possible, far beyond that of his contemporaries certainly and even most people today. 
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2010 at 16:23
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

I will recapitulate my views on Englishness, when it began, and when the kingdom of the English came into being.
 
Bede was aware of the old English language and the idea of Englishness in 731, and the idea would have pre-dated him by a generation or so. Indeed, as I poited out in an earlier post, he wrote about it.
 
Now the idea of an English kingdom began to germinate during the Reign of King Alfred. He styled himself a few times in charters as Rex Anglorum, and his loose confederation of Angelcynn was beginning to take on a geographical dimension. This idea of a  kingdom of the English continued to grow during the reigns of his succcessors. Edward, his son, and the following kings, Æthelstan, Edmund, and Edgar all used the term Rex anglorum. It meant explicitly, and with no ambiguity, "King of the English". The context in which the term was used proves that.
You continue to simply assert that 'Rex Anglorum' meant 'King of England' when that is exactly the point in debate, and it is obvious prima facie that it mean 'King of the Angles'. All it proves is that the idea of a kingdom of the Angles existed, which nobody is quarrelling with.
Quote
 
In fact EdmundÆthelstan`s successor, was described as Cyning. Engla þeoden in 942, and Edgar was described as Eadgar, Engla cyning in the year 975.
Engla þeoden  and Engla cyning are titles also given to Christ, where 'Engla' obviously means 'of the angels'. However this is anyway only a slight variation of the tactic above.
Quote
Actual proof that they regared themselves as rulers of the kingdom of the English. Here is a quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles regarding Edgar`s death:
 
"Here departed Edgar, ruler of the English, friend of the West Saxons, and protector of the Mercians." More proof that others were aware of an English kingdom in existence.
What are you translating as 'English' there?
 
Moreover, surely that indicates immediately that the 'English' (whom he rules) were seen as different from the West Saxons (whose friend he was) and the Mercians (whom he protected)?
Quote  
If you, gcle2003, wish to argue with Bede, with the scribes of Anglo-Saxon charters, with the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and also with a host of modern historians, then you, seemingly, must be blessed with more perception and knowledge than all of them put together.
 
I rest my case.
 
I'm not conscious of arguing with Bede, merely with your interpretation of him. Same goes for the Chronicles. All I'm arguing is that when they say 'Anglorum' 'Anglorum' is what they mean.
 
The English and the Angles (even the English and the Anglo-Saxons) are not the same people.


Edited by gcle2003 - 06 May 2010 at 16:31
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2010 at 20:27
I have quoted from many historians, experts in early English history, people such as Barbara Yorke, D. P. Kirby, Sarah Zaluckyj, David Hill, Sally Crawford, Steven Bassett........ the list could continue. But what is the point? I believe you are being provocative just for the sake of it, and it is consequently pointless for me to argue with you.
 
However, if you wish to continue, argue with the expert historians I`ve mentioned. 
Back to Top
LouisFerdinand View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LouisFerdinand Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2015 at 00:55
I like Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. He was the husband of Queen Victoria of Great Britain.    
He encouraged science, technology and the arts.     
It was Prince Albert who was the moving force behind the complex of museums in South Kensington and the Great Exhibition of 1851.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2015 at 15:52
Mine include General Philippe de Hautecloque, otherwise known as "Leclerc", and Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, both generals in Indochina. Leclerc had the vision to see that France was getting into a war it would not be able to win, recommended against it, and negotiated with Ho Chi Minh. His efforts earned him the undying emnity of his superior, Admiral Thierry d'Argenlieu. De Lattre turned down a prestigious and comfortable post in NATO to take over in Indochina after the Colonial Route 4 debacle, where he suffered the further pain of seeing his only son die there.   
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.