its at openlibrary.org
there's a (free) registration process, I cant be bothered
To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?
Sort:
Darn it. Thanks though.
Then what happened to Roman-British Christianity after the Germanic conquests of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes begun after 410? Please enlighten us, Mr. Factoid-meister.
I wasn't wrong, you just are ignorant of your own history. Did I ever say that Christianity didn't exist among the Romano-British? No.
Guess what, you don't know your facts, and no skimming of blurb-factoids makes you any more knowledgeable.
No I said Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms began in 597. Check me out, look at what I exactly said. I didn't say Christianisation of Britain. There is a reason I didn't say "Britain," and that I said "Anglo-Saxon".
There is a huge distinction between the two. Don't you know your own history?
This is a prime example of the main issue. Some fool, and I use that term literally with CBA, spends about five minutes skimming blubs from google, gets either an incomplete or totally incorrect idea in his head, then feels confident enough to "confront" someone with specialized knowledge in the field.
I said Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons, not of Britain. If you can't tell the difference then you have no place debating this issue.
Did I say Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons or the Christianization of Britain? There is a huge difference between the two. There is a material difference between the Christanization of the Britons under Roman Rule and the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons. Of course you can't grasp that by simply "googling" blurbs and factoids.
You are wrong here. You just proved my point that a layman using google for a specialized topic is prone to get the whole thing bollixed up.
Thank you.
The Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England began in 597. I stand by that statement 100%.
You do not seem to realize the distinction between Christianity in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England. Are you prepared to admit this?
Do they not teach history in England?
CBA wrote:
Of course, England would not exist for hundreds of years with the coming of Danelaw. But we all make mistakes. Even you. Yet you fixate on one in a desperate bid to "win" an argument that could just have been a reasonable debate. You concentrate on minutiae and don't see the big picture. Now, do you have a partner and do they tell you this regularly? Listen to them.
The distinction between Romano-Celtic Britain and Anglo-Saxon England (or the Heptarchy, or whatever term you want to use) is not minutia. It is perhaps the significant historical change of the fifth and sixth centuries.
You have no idea how ridiculous and uneducated (and flat out wrong) you would appear to anyone with any specialized historical knowledge of that era. Grade: F.
Apr 11, 2014
0
#372
Neither my butcher, hairdresser or masseuse understand what you are drooling about. Grade L for lost in oblivion.
Anglo-Saxon England is a completely acceptable phrase of art to describe the social and political culture that arose in present day England after the migrations of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Germanic tribes) to the Isle in the fifth century.
Britain is a term that denotes that which came before that, namely a Romano-Celtic culture and political framework. Therefore, in the context you are using it, Britain is more than a mere geographic term -- it is a cultural term.
So, no I made no mistake in using the term Anglo-Saxon England.
Of course you are wholly ignorant of this fact, because the only thing you know about it is what you "googled" in five seconds. Grade: F.
I am not going to comment upon my personal life here. Not that it really matters.
I might not be better than everyone, but I have certainly demonstrated a higher level of intelligence and education than you have.
Now, about that distinction about Anglo-Saxon England and Roman Britain, do you see it? Or do you need to use the google some more to compensate for your lack of education and critical thinking ability?
England certainly did not exist then. However, the term "Anglo-Saxon England" is a completely acceptable name for even the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of the sixth century.
Of course, another thing you do not realise, not having much knowledge of history (obviously).
No amount of "googling" changes that. You might as well be a parrot repeating Shakespeare.
Wow! Fascinating! I did not know the difference between England and Britain! Learning new things everyday here on this wonderful website!
Thanks for the info about John's biography!
CBA wrote:
Musacha used to make prank calls. He now tries it on the internet. Just thought that should be out there.
Cool. So you found my old CD huh?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem on edge.
Actually, you were not at all wrong in using the term Britain when referencing the Christianization of the local population under Roman rule.
Where you erred is assuming the Christianization of Roman Britain meant that the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (of England) did not begin in 597.
Your next mistake was acting all pompous based on your five seconds of "research" (which you totally misunderstood) in saying I was "wrong" when in fact I was not wrong. (Since, once again, the Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England did, as far as anyone knows, begin in 597).
I stand by every word of every sentence I typed, and you have yet to disprove a single iota of it.
All you have is snide ad hominem. Pathetic.
Neat! Can you actually "read" it? Can you connect me to the linque please? I thought the second edition was 1947. I am probably wrong though, just going by memory.