Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + + + +
no edit summary
::*Ah ha! A good sleep, and what Eternalpraise was saying is clear re-stated as you did, Chrusogonus! Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 15:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::*Ah ha! A good sleep, and what Eternalpraise was saying is clear re-stated as you did, Chrusogonus! Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 15:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Re "OK guys a few things: (1) The so-called English Invasion was in 1169 - that makes it 12th century, not 11th. (2)It was hardly English. As the Anglo-Celtic historian, Norman Davies, puts it: "For one thing the people who launched it were not English and not even acting on behalf of England. For another, the operation ended in what may be best rated a half conquest."
The expedition was the brainchild of a dispossessed Norman baron from Wales and an exiled Irish chief. They were joined by sundry knights and hangers-on who probably only knew enough English to order the servants around. (Check out the names: fitzStephen, fitzGerald. Norman names that are now as Irish as Patrick(who was British)). The adventure was given tacit assent by Henry (who was in Aquitaine at the time) and some sort of after-the-act legitimacy was given by the English-born Pope Adrian IV; but in no way was it an "English Invasion". A group of bored knights and nobility after a bit of pillage and what-have-you followed a pair of Irishmen with bees in their bonnets. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)