|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 19:54:41 GMT
I am not proposing, I am stating that according to your definition then England was a colony of the Normans. I have no idea what the relationships as regards Normandy was with Scandinavia and who was doing what as that is not the point being discussed. You could ask was Ghenghis Khan gay. It really has no bearing on the discussion as it does not change the relationship between Normandy and England nor between Ireland and Normans. Why would it? It's not my definition. I gave you a simple online dictionary definition that you asked for . The Norman invasion of 1066 is a key part of children education curriculum across scotland and England , and has been for decades. I learned about duke William , and his forebear , the viking duke rollo , in primary school .Pleading ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps for you, but not for me. History was local stuff and then cave man stuff and then I went off to Geography. I had never heard of Rollo until ten years ago. Having said that I am unclear what the relevance is. If Normandy was a colony or was not it would make no difference to the actions of the Normans and how those actions were viewed in relation to Ireland except of course that one may be able to blame Scandinavians. Of course what it does show is that history is a complex tapestry of events and relationships all intertwined. You gave me a definition of a colony that I worked with, do you wish to choose a different one? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:04:23 GMT
It's not my definition. I gave you a simple online dictionary definition that you asked for . The Norman invasion of 1066 is a key part of children education curriculum across scotland and England , and has been for decades. I learned about duke William , and his forebear , the viking duke rollo , in primary school .Pleading ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps for you, but not for me. History was local stuff and then cave man stuff and then I went off to Geography. I had never heard of Rollo until ten years ago. Having said that I am unclear what the relevance is. If Normandy was a colony or was not it would make no difference to the actions of the Normans and how those actions were viewed in relation to Ireland except of course that one may be able to blame Scandinavians. Of course what it does show is that history is a complex tapestry of events and relationships all intertwined. You gave me a definition of a colony that I worked with, do you wish to choose a different one? you have a read up on wikipedia about normandy , its easy will take you minutes , then come back refreshed and educated . then we can continue and you can offer your opinion on wether normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:05:43 GMT
It's not my definition. I gave you a simple online dictionary definition that you asked for . The Norman invasion of 1066 is a key part of children education curriculum across scotland and England , and has been for decades. I learned about duke William , and his forebear , the viking duke rollo , in primary school .Pleading ignorance is no excuse. You gave me a definition of a colony that I worked with, do you wish to choose a different one? once again another misrepresentation of what im saying ,and why I have little respect for you across this thread and others. I will persist though. wikipedia. normandy. Have a read. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:24:13 GMT
Perhaps for you, but not for me. History was local stuff and then cave man stuff and then I went off to Geography. I had never heard of Rollo until ten years ago. Having said that I am unclear what the relevance is. If Normandy was a colony or was not it would make no difference to the actions of the Normans and how those actions were viewed in relation to Ireland except of course that one may be able to blame Scandinavians. Of course what it does show is that history is a complex tapestry of events and relationships all intertwined. You gave me a definition of a colony that I worked with, do you wish to choose a different one? you have a read up on wikipedia about normandy , its easy will take you minutes , then come back refreshed and educated . then we can continue and you can offer your opinion on wether normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . No need it is not relevant to my point, nor is it relevant to yours. All that matters is was England a colony of the Normans, irrespective of who they were or whether or not they were a colony of someone else or not. Did Normans and their descendants hold all the power in England in 1175? I think the answer is yes. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:26:31 GMT
You gave me a definition of a colony that I worked with, do you wish to choose a different one? once again another misrepresentation of what im saying ,and why I have little respect for you across this thread and others. I will persist though. wikipedia. normandy. Have a read. I think I did work with the definition you gave. I am not clear how that misrepresents what you have said or are saying. You said Ireland was England's first colony. How else could I interpret that statement? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:32:41 GMT
you have a read up on wikipedia about normandy , its easy will take you minutes , then come back refreshed and educated . then we can continue and you can offer your opinion on wether normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . No need it is not relevant to my point, nor is it relevant to yours. All that matters is was England a colony of the Normans, irrespective of who they were or whether or not they were a colony of someone else or not. Did Normans and their descendants hold all the power in England in 1175? I think the answer is yes. you spent the entire thread basically arguing a colony could not colonise another country. Normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:34:31 GMT
once again another misrepresentation of what im saying ,and why I have little respect for you across this thread and others. I will persist though. wikipedia. normandy. Have a read. I think I did work with the definition you gave. I am not clear how that misrepresents what you have said or are saying. You said Ireland was England's first colony. How else could I interpret that statement? it was an online definition that you asked for , not mine. We both know you knew what a colony was , so please stop with the silly game. The definition of a colony , and your interpretation of that definition , has no bearing on my argument in any way. We can come back to that later though once you deal with normandy being a scandianvian colony in 1066. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:42:15 GMT
No need it is not relevant to my point, nor is it relevant to yours. All that matters is was England a colony of the Normans, irrespective of who they were or whether or not they were a colony of someone else or not. Did Normans and their descendants hold all the power in England in 1175? I think the answer is yes. you spent the entire thread basically arguing a colony could not colonise another country. Normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . Not quite right, I have said that the English were not involved in the invasion and colonisation of Ireland as England at the time of the invasion of Ireland was a colony of a foreign power and they and their descendants held all the levers of power in England. If the Normans were themselves subject to colonial power that makes no difference to my point. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:48:08 GMT
I think I did work with the definition you gave. I am not clear how that misrepresents what you have said or are saying. You said Ireland was England's first colony. How else could I interpret that statement? it was an online definition that you asked for , not mine. We both know you knew what a colony was , so please stop with the silly game. The definition of a colony , and your interpretation of that definition , has no bearing on my argument in any way. We can come back to that later though once you deal with normandy being a scandianvian colony in 1066. I asked you and you gave an online one and I assumed that in calling Ireland England's first colony that was the definition you were working to and in that definition England could clearly be classed as subject to colonial power. That is not a silly game, for some people it is very important and presents their view of how they should act against those they have been led to believe have wronged them. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:50:53 GMT
you spent the entire thread basically arguing a colony could not colonise another country. Normandy was a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066 . Not quite right, I have said that the English were not involved in the invasion and colonisation of Ireland they were. We know there was English soldiers , and we know the king of England , and his English administrators , made the Irish sign the treaty of Windsor. which itself was a colony of a foreign power , and you implied a colony ( as you do here) can't colonise another country. as did the Scandinavians over normandy. of course it does. You imply a colony can't colonise another country. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 20:54:05 GMT
it was an online definition that you asked for , not mine. We both know you knew what a colony was , so please stop with the silly game. The definition of a colony , and your interpretation of that definition , has no bearing on my argument in any way. We can come back to that later though once you deal with normandy being a scandianvian colony in 1066. I asked you and you gave an online one and I assumed that in calling Ireland England's first colony that was the definition you were working to and in that definition England could clearly be classed as subject to colonial power. That is not a silly game, for some people it is very important and presents their view of how they should act against those they have been led to believe have wronged them. this is mere semantics , another of your old but very poor tricks . The definition of a colony isnt the evidence. The treaty of Windsor annexing ireland to England is the evidence, and that historians call ireland Englands first colony. I gave examples, such as the Indian historian and writer earlier up the thread. so could normandy. Your point? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 21:03:13 GMT
I asked you and you gave an online one and I assumed that in calling Ireland England's first colony that was the definition you were working to and in that definition England could clearly be classed as subject to colonial power. That is not a silly game, for some people it is very important and presents their view of how they should act against those they have been led to believe have wronged them. this is mere semantics , another of your old but very poor tricks . The definition of a colony isnt the evidence. The treaty of Windsor annexing ireland to England is the evidence, and that historians call ireland Englands first colony. I gave examples, such as the Indian historian and writer earlier up the thread. so could normandy. Your point? Then if Normandy is then it is the colonial power in Normandy that rules the roost, as I have already said. Either way it makes no difference to what happened as regards Ireland and the colonial power in England. If I have to spell out why OK perhaps I will. The Normans invaded Ireland after taking colonial control of England. For your comparison to work it would have to be the Scandinavians that invaded England, but it was not it was the Normans. In Ireland it was not the colonised from England that invaded it was the colonists from England. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 21:10:03 GMT
this is mere semantics , another of your old but very poor tricks . The definition of a colony isnt the evidence. The treaty of Windsor annexing ireland to England is the evidence, and that historians call ireland Englands first colony. I gave examples, such as the Indian historian and writer earlier up the thread. so could normandy. Your point? Then if Normandy is then it is the colonial power in Normandy that rules the roost, as I have already said. ...but if the colonial power in normandy that rules the roost , then whats wrong with saying the colonial power who ruled England colonised ireland? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 21:15:25 GMT
this is mere semantics , another of your old but very poor tricks . The definition of a colony isnt the evidence. The treaty of Windsor annexing ireland to England is the evidence, and that historians call ireland Englands first colony. I gave examples, such as the Indian historian and writer earlier up the thread. so could normandy. Your point? For your comparison to work it would have to be the Scandinavians that invaded England, but it was not it was the Normans. it wasn't the normans . Haven't we already agreed that the normans themselves. like the English were colonised? The Scandinavians did invade England , many times , including around the time of Hastings. So couldnt it be argued the Scandinavians were merely invading England in 1066 to liberate their Celtic and Scandinavian cousins fro mthe evil anglo saxon oppressors who had earlier colonised them from Germany? So 1066 was a liberation , not a conquest? No it wasn't. We have already made this point a couple of posts back. There were English soldiers in the invading colonising army . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 21:42:41 GMT
For your comparison to work it would have to be the Scandinavians that invaded England, but it was not it was the Normans. it wasn't the normans . Haven't we already agreed that the normans themselves. like the English were colonised? The Scandinavians did invade England , many times , including around the time of Hastings. So couldnt it be argued the Scandinavians were merely invading England in 1066 to liberate their Celtic and Scandinavian cousins fro mthe evil anglo saxon oppressors who had earlier colonised them from Germany? So 1066 was a liberation , not a conquest? No it wasn't. We have already made this point a couple of posts back. There were English soldiers in the invading colonising army . Many things can be argued which is in part my point, it is far more complex than a simple Country x colonised Country Y. If English soldiers were present then they were part of the feudal obligations as decided by the colonial power. Just as there were Native American fighters on the side of the expanding US but we do not say it was Native Americans that expanded the US. There were also Irish soldiers present in 1170 but they did not colonise themselves did they? |
|
