English Histree

[Deleted member 77198]

For those interested in Medieval
History, Marc Morris is bringing out a book about the Anglo-Saxons in May this year. Really looking forward to it as it will focus on the early Anglo-Saxon period, an era where there is little popular history on. His book on Edward I is a great read as is his on the Norman Conquest, although the latter is abit of a slot in parts. He’s also got a book on King John but I haven’t read that.

Another great book for those interested in Medieval History is The Greatest Knight by Thomas Asbridge. It’s about about my favourite historical
figure, William Marshall, a second born son who became a knight and served 4 kings of England, sort of like a Medieval Forest Gump. Asbridge has also done a great book ( and massive) book on the crusades which was a great read

Nice one, I’ll look into that.

There’s a good, but old now, documentary series called Barbarians that was pretty good when it came out.



One of the episodes is on the Saxons

 

[Rascal]

See above. One man respects your "Great Admiration" yet one man does not. One man was a rabid slaver and one man was not.

Because I disagree that Lee was a rabid slaver.

As I said much earlier in the thread history is wrote by the winners. In this case it suited the winners because of the furore over whether Lincoln owned slaves to also encourage Lee owning slaves, There is evidence both for and against in each case.

And back to the original statement, Britain never stood alone.

As for Churchill he was a ****, i am sorry of that offends your sensibilities, but using poison gas on peoples he thought barbaric is not the actions of a decent man. Sending troops to deal with striking miners in Tonypandy was not the actions of a decent man. Enacting the Bengal famine was not the actions of a decent man, deploying the Black and Tans to Ireland was not the actions of a decent man. He accepted bribes whilst an MP, not the actions of a decent man.

He was however a great war leader, but a decent man he was not.

 

[oman0115]

This is really interesting, there must've been a hell of a lot of conflict up to the 16th century, then when everything looks settled we started invading other lands. Am I reading to much in to it, or is it fair to say England is a country so used to conflict, when there was none in our own land we have to go and find some action elsewhere?

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Because I disagree that Lee was a rabid slaver.

Then sadly, you have become more blinkered than Traveller his horse.

As I said much earlier in the thread history is wrote by the winners. In this case it suited the winners because of the furore over whether Lincoln owned slaves to also encourage Lee owning slaves, There is evidence both for and against in each case.

I do not think it was the winning Union accusing him, more the black slaves that had their backs whipped and freedom removed with families cruely divided and sold onto different plantations.

It wasn't the winning Union that condemned him a racist, but more his own writing and musings on the subject.

And back to the original statement, Britain never stood alone.

Back to my original statement. Lee was a racist.

As for Churchill he was a ****, i am sorry of that offends your sensibilities,

No it doesn't mate, it's your favourite choice of word at the moment so I just make allowances.

but using poison gas on peoples he thought barbaric is not the actions of a decent man. Sending troops to deal with striking miners in Tonypandy was not the actions of a decent man. Enacting the Bengal famine was not the actions of a decent man, deploying the Black and Tans to Ireland was not the actions of a decent man. He accepted bribes whilst an MP, not the actions of a decent man.

How many slaves did Churchill keep. Lee was a lucky lad going to war with his wife's slaves to look after his every care and whim. I bet they were proud to be of assistance, preparing him for battle whislt spitballing his shoes real good massah.

He was however a great war leader, but a decent man he was not.

So, was General Lee a good man, you haven't answered the question. You admire him greatly, but was he a bad man in a non military role and do you think he was racist?

You told me this era was your pet subject so you must have read the evidence appertaining to the mans credentials. Do you completely dismiss all you have read, even though his letters are available, testaments from first hand witnesses and most sources on the intranet saying so. The evidence stacked against the man is nothing short of damming. What about Pryors award winning book that won the Lincoln Prize and the Jefferson Davis Award? All fictitious and made up or do they just hand out prizes for prizes sake.

 

[KPXBLN]

Is the UK's welfare system the most generous in Europe? - Full Fact

Yeh the idea that the UK welfare system is generous by Western European standards is just laughable

 

[Corky]

Yeh the idea that the UK welfare system is generous by Western European standards is just laughable

The last table misses the Netherlands out so looks like they haven't doesn't a thorough job.

Using 2009 estimates with all the changes since doesn't prove anything now, forget about the benefit cap, the rents were massive in those days with a 5 bedroom LHA rate in central London of £2k a week rather than having a £400 cap 2 years later. Even for a 3 bedroom house the rent would £40k a year then in that area.

 

[Rascal]

Then sadly, you have become more blinkered than Traveller his horse.



I do not think it was the winning Union accusing him, more the black slaves that had their backs whipped and freedom removed with families cruely divided and sold onto different plantations.

It wasn't the winning Union that condemned him a racist, but more his own writing and musings on the subject.



Back to my original statement. Lee was a racist.



No it doesn't mate, it's your favourite choice of word at the moment so I just make allowances.



How many slaves did Churchill keep. Lee was a lucky lad going to war with his wife's slaves to look after his every care and whim. I bet they were proud to be of assistance, preparing him for battle whislt spitballing his shoes real good massah.



So, was General Lee a good man, you haven't answered the question. You admire him greatly, but was he a bad man in a non military role and do you think he was racist?

You told me this era was your pet subject so you must have read the evidence appertaining to the mans credentials. Do you completely dismiss all you have read, even though his letters are available, testaments from first hand witnesses and most sources on the intranet saying so. The evidence stacked against the man is nothing short of damming. What about Pryors award winning book that won the Lincoln Prize and the Jefferson Davis Award? All fictitious and made up or do they just hand out prizes for prizes sake.

Like I said there is loads of evidence that says different. Long's biography published in 1886 shed light on Lee in a letter dated 1856 where he says " there are few I believe in the age of enlightened age that will not acknowledge slavery to be an institution that is a moral and political evil" Long had access to many people still alive when he wrote the book.

Pryor's book published in 2007 leaned heavily on the work of Long to produce a narrative that attempts to promote the view that its part of the "lost cause" propaganda. It is interesting that she uses the words "lost cause" as that promotes the idea that the war was about Slavery. There is a counter narrative to that of course being that the war was about independence because of Lincolns mercantilism and disregard of the constitution (Lee being strongly for constitutional liberty). In a book by Di Lorenzo, he goes as far as to call Lincoln a fascist. Di Lorenzo is a source i am not wholly comfortable with though because of his association with the Mises Institute which is based in Alabama and off course will be skewed in the same way Pryor may be because she was born in Indiana. I will though buy her book.

Here on this link her book is taken apart.

Misreading the Man: Robert E. Lee and Elizabeth Brown Pryor | Abbeville Institute

There is no evidence Traveller wore Blinkers BTW,

That is history. We weren't there so we rely on accounts of others. No statue ever can tell you the truth. Which was the starting point of our little discussion.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Lee didn't own slaves, although this is much debated, his family did and evidence can be sourced either way depending on where you look and who you believe. The same can be said of U.S. Grant, again according to sources he did and he didn't.

My admiration for Lee works the same way as my admiration for Churchill. I said Churchill was the right man at the right time, a brilliant war leader but my disdain comes from when he was not that man. My admiration for Lee was he was the right man at the right time for the Confederacy, he was indeed a brilliant General, one of the finest in history. What I admire though is he took the hard choice of refusing to take overall command of the Union Army because his state was part of the Confederacy and he chose to fight with his people, Virginian's.

Both were noble in time of war.

I did also say I found it very conflicting that I could hold these views, so I am a little unsure at what point you are trying to make.

Robert E Lee was, in the view of many Military Strategists, up there with
the ten greatest generals of all time. The Union forces were defeated time and again in the early years of the Civil war. Confederate cavalry, (like the
Royalist cavalry in the English civil war), was far superior to the Union's,
troop dispositions were made more efficiently, and attacks more effective.
Defeat for the South was mainly because of a massive disparity in industrial capacity, and manpower, and Grant was far more proficient than other Union generals.
The war wasn't primarily about slavery either, many in the North, Lincoln included, were ambivalent about it, and once more, this was because of attitudes prevalent at the time, held by both north and south.

 

[Magicpole]

These theories have been debunked many times. There are thousands of religions across the world all with different events and festivals and even if Christianity did have some that fall on the same week as others, it is entirely and in fact likely to be a coincidence.

Take Christmas for example. I don’t actually know if Christmas Day is the birthday of Jesus, I just choose to celebrate it on that day. It’s not in the Gospels what day it is, neither is the calendar day of the resurrection.

The early church was founded by the people that knew Jesus and had followed him in person and then St Paul.

Again, The Puritans, alongside many other sects of Christianity, have been debunked by people who know scripture but it is possible 25th of December isn’t the birth of Christ, it’s just the day we celebrate it.

Regarding the Pagan gods and goddesses, what seems to happen, as happened with Mithras, is people repeat online and in public that they have the same attributes to the story of Christ and it’s often not true. We have been over this before.

Bill Maher, on his own documentary against Christianity, went to the Jerusalem and told a Christian that Mithras was born of a virgin, born on Christmas Day, killed and resurrected after three days etc. and he said it as if it was out and out fact.

Now, it turns out Mithras was 400 years after Christ, and several of those things are totally false.

It’s claims like that this that need to be backed up to take them seriously and often they aren’t.

Nobody is forcing you to take Christianity seriously or resonate with it, I in fact will defend your right to reject it. I will however just state that even if claims of pagan gods and goddesses sharing festivals with Christianity, it A) doesn’t mean Christianity isn’t true B) doesn’t mean that the pagans didn’t copy the Christians and c) is likely to always happen with there being so many gods and goddesses in the world, over the millennia.

It's not coincidence. They were specifically chosen to replace existing festivals to reduce resistance. Everything Psycho Casual said there is part of the record. Christianity highjacked them and made them their own. Like an invading force laying down new rules for the populace they just defeated.

 

[Protein Junkie]

For those interested in Medieval
History, Marc Morris is bringing out a book about the Anglo-Saxons in May this year. Really looking forward to it as it will focus on the early Anglo-Saxon period, an era where there is little popular history on. His book on Edward I is a great read as is his on the Norman Conquest, although the latter is abit of a slog in parts. He’s also got a book on King John but I haven’t read that.

Another great book for those interested in Medieval History is The Greatest Knight by Thomas Asbridge. It’s about about my favourite historical
figure, William Marshall, a second born son who became a knight and served 4 kings of England, sort of like a Medieval Forest Gump. Asbridge has also done a great book ( and massive) book on the crusades which was a great read

I’ve got Marc Morris book on King John and imho it’s a very good read. Definitely a Medieval Klopp :-).
I’ve also got Chris Peers book on Offa and the Anglo Saxons amongst many other books on History.
A serious book for Academics is JA McCullochs - The Religion of the Ancient Celts - very dry.