The Anglosphere is the only thing that keeps the world from descending into barbarism

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Comte who was considered a hereditory landowner who held his feudal title by right of birth (in this period)." Nope. The land belongs to the King at these times (or the Suzerain) who delegated it to his vassal. Tittle and land (tittle going with the land, not reverse) could be withdraw if felony.
"John Lackland provided the excuse when, in 1200, he 'abducted' and married (30 August) the fiancé, Isabelle d'Angoulême, of Hugh 'le Brun', son of the comte de la Marche. John I then rejected a summons to appear (as duc d'Aquitaine) before King Philippe II, technically his suzerain. In 1202, John was declared 'a felon' and Philippe II seized Anjou, Brittany, Maine, Normandy, and Touraine. "
in http://www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK8SrkJUDs

"King of England refuses to submit to King of France, King of France declares War."

That particular example is terrible because it's a King as vassal to another King, and it's two Kings who want each other's land.

[Brenus]

"That particular example is terrible because it's a King as vassal to another King, and it's two Kings who want each other's land." Nope. Suzerain take back tittle and Lands to Vassal (as he was allowed by feudal's rules) because felony.

Gilles de Rais was as well stripped of his tittle and Lands. Little and Lands which were returned to his Daughter by the French King. Contrary to what you are saying, the Nobility at that times was not owner of the land nor the tittle, but were only the recipient of it.

[Marcvs julius]

My opinion is that it was the "Anglosphere" who created many conflits that we see in the word today...

In a quest for oil(for energy), that most conflits were created mostly in the mid east and in africa...

for example sutern sudan was part of sudan the largest country in terms of territory in Africa, in the begining the muslin north with its capital in cartun did not pay atencion to the porer regions of the chistian and animist south, but them oil was found and the american eagle, and the chinese dragon got all the suden interested in the country, after some conpetion the chinese begun investing in the country oil begun to flow but there was still no infrastruture to cary the oil to the coast were it cold be shped overseas so the chinese dicided to fetch those who were in jail and said "here are the picks and shovels let get to work" and so projects like the nile dam were built in the meantime the "Anglosphere" started to encorage the rebels in the south and so gerrila movement was found.
By 2008 after many victims and many years of war south sudan become independent obout 80 per cent of sudan's oil lies in the south but the infra struture to cary it abroad lies in the north and the question of sharing the oil money become the subject of mutch debate... and further conflit...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, so the separation of thee country into North and South Sudan is ALL ABOUT OIL and nothing to do with the Muslim coup in the North that instituted Sharia Law?

I SEEEEEEEE.

Pull the other one.

The country splintered because of long standing Christian-Muslim animosity, animosity excited by Egypt and Britain for mainly ideological reasons after WWII.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"That particular example is terrible because it's a King as vassal to another King, and it's two Kings who want each other's land." Nope. Suzerain take back tittle and Lands to Vassal (as he was allowed by feudal's rules) because felony.

Gilles de Rais was as well stripped of his tittle and Lands. Little and Lands which were returned to his Daughter by the French King. Contrary to what you are saying, the Nobility at that times was not owner of the land nor the tittle, but were only the recipient of it.

A King who is notionally the Feudal Lord of another King can only enforce his claims on his "vassal" in so far as his is the stronger. This is a rather different situation to a King who's vassals are a lower rank. The Kings of france during much of the Early and High Medieval Period were also week because while they theoretically held most of the country in Freehold and everybody was under lease to them in reality they had little actual land. This contrasts strongly with the Cerding Kings of England prior to thee Conquest, who actual held a significant amount of land in lease to their own Earls.

This is a situation which developed over centuries because England remained relatively stable and "Book land" (land granted by charter) because increasingly common, such charters being perpetual titles of ownership in Freehold rather than leasehold.

Then along came William the Bastard and reset the clock, taking all land for himself and handing it out in leasehold to his vassals, ruining the economy.

How old is England? England is at least as old as Alfred - because that was thee defining moment when we ceased to be "Angles and Saxons" and became "Anglo-Saxons", and what defined an Anglo-Saxon was throwing off the Vikings. Later, an Anglo-Saxon was someone under a Norman boot.

Now, every defining French story I've ever heard talks about one of the times you threw the English out of France, France being defined as the bit you threw us out of plus the people doing the throwing.

Give me a French origin story older than Alfred and I'll concede the point - Charlemagne doesn't count because he's just as much father of Germany as France.

Just accept thee superiority of the English and their spawn, surely you must see it? You live among us and married one of our many excellent women!

[Husar]

Charlemagne was the father of the EU and therefore the EU is the older country.

[Greyblades]

Charlemagne: rolling in his grave since 1993.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Charlemagne was the father of the EU and therefore the EU is the older country.

Don't be silly, Augustus is father to the EU because his Empire even included your ungrateful ancestors.

[Greyblades]

Augustus: rolling in his grave since 1993

[Brenus]

"Give me a French origin story older than Alfred and I'll concede the point - Charlemagne doesn't count because he's just as much father of Germany as France." Charlemagne being the son of Pépin le Bref, first Carolingian of the Dynasty.
Officially, the 1st King of France (King of the Franks) was Clovis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I
I think that will do.

Now, French Historian think that the unification of the French in one country starts with Phillip II at Bouvines.

"You live among us and married one of our many excellent women!" I came to remind the English the roots of civilisation (camember, baguettes and red wine), so I integrated the society. Hard work. I still don't understand this interest for the Ashes

[Gilrandir]

This is a situation which developed over centuries because England remained relatively stable and "Book land" (land granted by charter) because increasingly common, such charters being perpetual titles of ownership in Freehold rather than leasehold.

You can hold the book land as long as you are powerful enough to enforce the charter. And the Lackland is the best proof of it.

Then along came William the Bastard and reset the clock, taking all land for himself and handing it out in leasehold to his vassals, ruining the economy.

Any war ruins the economy but it may eventually lead to a higher degree of development (e.g. Roman civilization, Ottoman expansion).

How old is England? England is at least as old as Alfred - because that was thee defining moment when we ceased to be "Angles and Saxons" and became "Anglo-Saxons", and what defined an Anglo-Saxon was throwing off the Vikings.

First of all, you forget the Jutes.
Second of all, Alfred is called (in Wikipedia) "the king of WESSEX". After he died England was still not unified.
Third of all, it is hardly possible to claim the exact date of "erasing differences" between the tribes/kingdoms of pre-conquest England.
I believe that the event that made them feel English/Anglo-Saxon was the conquest itself after which the people(s) of England realized that outsiders who were totally different from them were coming to the merry old country.

You live among us and married one of our many excellent women!

... to destroy the country from within.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can hold the book land as long as you are powerful enough to enforce the charter. And the Lackland is the best proof of it.

Ah, but this is where you confuse the Anglo-Saxon and Norman Kingdoms - you just try taking Book Land in Anglo-Saxon England, see where it gets you.

Any war ruins the economy but it may eventually lead to a higher degree of development (e.g. Roman civilization, Ottoman expansion).

Perfectly true, but the evidence is that within a generation the previously free Saxon peasants were all impoverished serfs and the currency was so debased that Henry I couldn't use it to pay his mercenaries, when Edward I tried to build a core of armoured spearmen for his army akin to the Fyrd he discovered that England could no longer field a levy of that quality and had to resort to massed archery instead.

By contrast in 1066 Harold II fielded an army composed almost exclusively of heavy infantry wear iron helms and iron maille.

One of the reasons William II compiled the Doomsday Book was because he needed all the court documents, charters, writs etc collected together and translated from English (which everyone could read) into Latin (which only the clergy and upper aristocracy could read well).

First of all, you forget the Jutes.

The Jutes appear not to have settled in large numbers as compared to the Angles and Saxons, like the Geats they were absorbed into the two larger groups.

Second of all, Alfred is called (in Wikipedia) "the king of WESSEX". After he died England was still not unified.

If you read the Wikipedia article you'll see he was referred to as "King of the Anglo-Saxons" when he died, as was his Son and Grandson. Athelstan the Magnificent is the first "King of the English" after he puses the border all the way up to Scotland, but he just expanded the the Kingdom his grandfather re-formed.

Third of all, it is hardly possible to claim the exact date of "erasing differences" between the tribes/kingdoms of pre-conquest England.
I believe that the event that made them feel English/Anglo-Saxon was the conquest itself after which the people(s) of England realized that outsiders who were totally different from them were coming to the merry old country.

No, I think you're definitely wrong here, England was such a prize because it was unified, they used to vary the silver content in the English penny every two-three years to account for economic fluctuations, and there is a wealth of material on Courts, charters, organisation. England was not unified then, indeed it is not now, but it was ONE country.

... to destroy the country from within.

Everybody hates the English because we are morally and culturally superior to everyone since Ancient Rome, and we all have fantastic teeth - and our food is the best in the world.

[Greyblades]

I have a theory that people think English food is bad because the good English dishes have been adopted worldwide and that the only ones people still realize are English are the ones that weren't good enough to become a ubiquitous staple of western societies like the sandwich or Sunday roast did.

[Brenus]

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

[Gilrandir]

Ah, but this is where you confuse the Anglo-Saxon and Norman Kingdoms - you just try taking Book Land in Anglo-Saxon England, see where it gets you.

Heptarchy kingdoms were no different in this regard. Their borders changed, sometimes some of them were united under a powerful ruler (i.e. Offa) and split after his death. So to rule a kingdom you had to have a more significant argument up your sleeve than just a piece of paper.

By contrast in 1066 Harold II fielded an army composed almost exclusively of heavy infantry wear iron helms and iron maille.

Evidently, it didn't help him much.

The Jutes appear not to have settled in large numbers as compared to the Angles and Saxons, like the Geats they were absorbed into the two larger groups.

Yet their culture is the one apart and seemed to be of a higher level than the others'. It will never do to count them out from British identity.

If you read the Wikipedia article you'll see he was referred to as "King of the Anglo-Saxons" when he died, as was his Son and Grandson. Athelstan the Magnificent is the first "King of the English" after he puses the border all the way up to Scotland, but he just expanded the the Kingdom his grandfather re-formed.

Again, his kingdom didn't include the whole of England. There were others in evidence.

And there is the problem with titles monarchs might have adopted: if a king called himself something, it doesn't mean it was true. For instance, English kings during Hundred years war claimed the title of the king of France and even (from time to time) quartered their coat of arms with fleur de lis, yet in fact it was a wishful thinking.

No, I think you're definitely wrong here, England was such a prize because it was unified, they used to vary the silver content in the English penny every two-three years to account for economic fluctuations, and there is a wealth of material on Courts, charters, organisation. England was not unified then, indeed it is not now, but it was ONE country.

It was a unified COUNTRY, there's no doubt about it, that's why the Conqueror had to kill only one person to have the crown. But we here speak of a unified IDENTITY of the people. Usually this process takes decades or even centuries, but often there is a shock, an all-national disaster for people to realize their "togetherness" through differentiating themselves from another people. Think of uniting Italy. Something like this is happening in Ukraine nowadays.

Anyway, it is difficult for us now to claim with certainty that in the year of Alfred's death people of his kingdom considered themselves "English" and not "Saxons".

[Greyblades]

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

English resteraunts aren't called English resteraunts, they're just called resteraunts; the base standard of resteraunt is english, everyone else has to differentiate themselves against by specifying nationality and/or style to avoid confusion.

[Husar]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=restaurant

Restaurant is a french word and therefore every restaurant is by default a french one.

[Greyblades]

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

[Pannonian]

Indeed. The modern world's lingua franca is English. The British civilisation is the world's cultural oeuvre. The world's raison d'etre is to serve the Anglophones. Let us stand for the national anthem.

Le dieu sauve notre reine...

[Husar]

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

Not chips, french fries!

[Greyblades]

Not french: freedom fries!

[Gilrandir]

The modern world's lingua franca is English.

It is subject to changes. In the 17-18th centuries it was Portuguese. Who knows, perhaps soon it's gonna be Chinese.

The British civilisation is the world's cultural oeuvre.

Say that again... Did I hear hors d'oeuvre?

[Pannonian]

I'll tell you what though. We need to convert to radical religion, any kind that practices asceticism, if we are to stop the world from sinking into barberism.

[Gilrandir]

I'll tell you what though. We need to convert to radical religion, any kind that practices asceticism, if we are to stop the world from sinking into barberism.

Then Brenus will accuse us of obscurantism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"and our food is the best in the world." That is a least the most reasonable claim you made (don't forget the lovely weather). Not you can find "English" restaurant in every cities in the world. And no, "Fish and Chips" doesn't count.

Fish and Chips count.

For the uninitiated - chips and French Fries aren't actually the same.

Heptarchy kingdoms were no different in this regard. Their borders changed, sometimes some of them were united under a powerful ruler (i.e. Offa) and split after his death. So to rule a kingdom you had to have a more significant argument up your sleeve than just a piece of paper.

You are speaking of the Bretwalda, with "wide wielder", and you are correct but Alfred was something new, rather than allowing other Kings after Alfred we would have only one king of the Anglo-Saxons, and once we had retakedn the Danelaw we would have one "King of the English".

Alfred is the only King in English history termed "The Great" for a reason. He's also the only Pre-Conquest English King other than Edward the Confessor who children are taught about in shcool, or who was valourised in the Post-Conquest literature.

Evidently, it didn't help him much.

I don't know if you know the battle, but it is universally considered a close run thing with two events considered pivotal, the point in the mid afternoon (irrc) where a section of harold's army charged down the hill and were caught out of the shieldwall and cut down by William's knights, and the point in the late afternoon when Harold was cut down by four Norman Knights.

Harold probably should have had archers, it would have made things easier, but I'm not sure it actually would have made a huge impact because archery in this period wasn't all that significant, William had archers and crossbowmen and it still took all day to break the English army, and only after a large section of it was tricked, trapped, and slaughtered.

Yet their culture is the one apart and seemed to be of a higher level than the others'. It will never do to count them out from British identity.

Again, his kingdom didn't include the whole of England. There were others in evidence.

And there is the problem with titles monarchs might have adopted: if a king called himself something, it doesn't mean it was true. For instance, English kings during Hundred years war claimed the title of the king of France and even (from time to time) quartered their coat of arms with fleur de lis, yet in fact it was a wishful thinking.

That's true, but Alfred's reach extended beyond his own borders into the Danelaw which was Christianised after Alfred defeated Guthrum in battle. Alfred may not have achieved political unity but he is our first "English King" so he was crucial in forming us into a nation and his Grandson WAS a King of all England, and nominally overlord of all Britain - but he's still overshadowed by his grandfather.

It was a unified COUNTRY, there's no doubt about it, that's why the Conqueror had to kill only one person to have the crown. But we here speak of a unified IDENTITY of the people. Usually this process takes decades or even centuries, but often there is a shock, an all-national disaster for people to realize their "togetherness" through differentiating themselves from another people. Think of uniting Italy. Something like this is happening in Ukraine nowadays.

Well, what's happening in Ukraine is that bits are being cut off and that's welding the rest together. I remember something like ten years ago IA and I was discussing common English identity in a thread and we couldn't find a single thing in common beyond the Royal Family (even the language isn't really the same, more so than it was but only because of mass transport).

Anyway, it is difficult for us now to claim with certainty that in the year of Alfred's death people of his kingdom considered themselves "English" and not "Saxons".

I think the point is that they considered themselves "Anglo-Saxons" and then "West Saxons" or "East Saxons" or "East Angles".

The word is french but the modernl expectation has become fairly English; when you want an english dish, for example roast beef, chips and gravy, you don't seek out a specialised English establishment you look for a basic restaurant and usually expect it to serve it. There's obviously going to be some variation on locale, but the general expectation in the western world is so.

You are describing a pub - not a restaurant.

[Greyblades]

No I'm not. The average western restaraunt has English/british origins, enough to make the idea of an "English restaraunt" largely redundant.

[Husar]

No I'm not. The average western restaraunt has English/british origins, enough to make the idea of an "English restaraunt" largely redundant.

You mean french restaurant.
Also this: http://www.theenglishrestaurant.com

In London.

And this: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/engli...ago-38641.html

What should worry you is that there are so few.

[Greyblades]

As opposed to a German restaurant of which there are even fewer? Although I suppose in your case the explanation is less due to redundance and more repulsion.

National headbutting aside, redundant doesn't mean nonexistant, otherwise your assertion of french restaurant would have been disproven by the first cafe rouge.
Nor is it exclusive, a institution's template can have multiple contributers.

[Gilrandir]

Alfred is the only King in English history termed "The Great" for a reason. He's also the only Pre-Conquest English King other than Edward the Confessor who children are taught about in shcool, or who was valourised in the Post-Conquest literature.

That's true, but Alfred's reach extended beyond his own borders into the Danelaw which was Christianised after Alfred defeated Guthrum in battle. Alfred may not have achieved political unity but he is our first "English King" so he was crucial in forming us into a nation and his Grandson WAS a King of all England, and nominally overlord of all Britain - but he's still overshadowed by his grandfather.

This is called good PR. There is a book by Feuchtwanger called The Ugly Duchess, in which he describes the life of a 14th century Tyrol ruler. Since she was ugly, all her subjects attributed all mishaps that were in evidence to her mismanagement and all good things to her pretty relative (IIRC).

I don't doubt or argue Alfred's role in the history of England, yet history of the past (in any country) is often a subject tailored to suit the purposes of later times. Royal nicknames are often misleading and too flattering to their bearers actual character and\or input into the development of the country and don't cover the whole gamut of a person's traits and actions. Russia had two "the Greats" - Peter I and Catherine II - but their role is far from being exceptionally positive. Louis XIII was "the Just". Do you really think he WAS that?

I remember something like ten years ago IA and I was discussing common English identity in a thread and we couldn't find a single thing in common beyond the Royal Family (even the language isn't really the same, more so than it was but only because of mass transport).

You forget the fish and chips.

I think the point is that they considered themselves "Anglo-Saxons" and then "West Saxons" or "East Saxons" or "East Angles".

I don't think we will know this (or the opposite) for sure. A nation's identity is hard to gauge even now to say nothing of the past.

[Husar]

As opposed to a German restaurant of which there are even fewer? Although I suppose in your case the explanation is less due to redundance and more repulsion.

Unlike your claim about British restaurants, I never claimed anything about German ones.

It is more likely that Germany is used to sell entire parts of cities or drug store chains:
http://www.drogueriasalemana.com
https://www.google.de/maps/place/Ger...81289af7d6d2f0

Not to mention all the ALDI stores (or ALDI-owned chains) you can find all over the world.

It does not really bother me if you make a big deal out of a few puny restaurants.