Why was England so interested in conquering Ireland?
#31
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: An interesting aside, but I'd note that the Romans never ruled "the English."   They ruled Celts living in Britain.  The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (the English proper) came later.  They were Germanic tribes and never lived under Roman rule.

The Romans easily established control over southeastern tribes in England (eg the Caractacus).... the Iceni were a little more trouble. But it's true that the whole of Britain was never under Roman control. I should have said Britons rather than English :P
Reply
#32
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)didishroom Wrote: Hitler didn't even care about Poland; I believe he just wanted a port in Poland.

Are you familiar with the concept of Lebensraum?  Are you familiar with Hitler's routine?  He would make a reasonable demand and then manipulate the situation to get an unreasonable result.  If Hitler got Danzig and the Corridor, he then would have pressed forward to get the rest of Poland.  When he took the Sudetenland, he went on to establish a "protectorate" over Bohemia and Moravia and strong-armed the leaders of Slovakia.  He forcefully conquered Austria.  Etc., etc.  And what Hitler did to Poland once he conquered it shows well enough what his intentions were:  annexation and German colonization.  His henchmen even abducted "Aryan-looking" Polish children and sent them to Germany to be raised by Germans as Germans.  
Reply
#33
(07-25-2009, 10:51 AM)Melita Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: An interesting aside, but I'd note that the Romans never ruled "the English."   They ruled Celts living in Britain.  The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (the English proper) came later.  They were Germanic tribes and never lived under Roman rule.

The Romans easily established control over southeastern tribes in England (eg the Caractacus).... the Iceni were a little more trouble. But it's true that the whole of Britain was never under Roman control. I should have said Britons rather than English :P

I'm not sure you understand what I was objecting to.  I didn't think that you meant the Romans ruled all of Britain.  I meant that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (who eventually became the English) weren't even living in Britain when the Romans ruled the island.  They were over in Denmark and northern Germany, free from Roman rule.  So, yes, the Romans ruled all of what eventually became England, it's just that the English weren't there yet.
Reply
#34
(07-25-2009, 10:55 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:51 AM)Melita Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: An interesting aside, but I'd note that the Romans never ruled "the English."   They ruled Celts living in Britain.  The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (the English proper) came later.  They were Germanic tribes and never lived under Roman rule.

The Romans easily established control over southeastern tribes in England (eg the Caractacus).... the Iceni were a little more trouble. But it's true that the whole of Britain was never under Roman control. I should have said Britons rather than English :P

I'm not sure you understand what I was objecting to.  I didn't think that you meant the Romans ruled all of Britain.  I meant that the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (who eventually became the English) weren't even living in Britain when the Romans ruled the island.  They were over in Denmark and northern Germany, free from Roman rule.  So, yes, the Romans ruled all of what eventually became England, it's just that the English weren't there yet.

You misunderstood the point of my post, which was really about German identity in the Third Reich as a primarily Roman construct. I was talking about Britons, and their tribes. The dates I had in mind: c.43-410 AD. And the Romans never did succeed in subduing all of Britain.
Reply
#35
(07-25-2009, 10:53 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)didishroom Wrote: Hitler didn't even care about Poland; I believe he just wanted a port in Poland.

Are you familiar with the concept of Lebensraum?  Are you familiar with Hitler's routine?  He would make a reasonable demand and then manipulate the situation to get an unreasonable result.  If Hitler got Danzig and the Corridor, he then would have pressed forward to get the rest of Poland.  When he took the Sudetenland, he went on to establish a "protectorate" over Bohemia and Moravia and strong-armed the leaders of Slovakia.  He forcefully conquered Austria.  Etc., etc.  And what Hitler did to Poland once he conquered it shows well enough what his intentions were:  annexation and German colonization.  His henchmen even abducted "Aryan-looking" Polish children and sent them to Germany to be raised by Germans as Germans.  

The Austrians voted him in, and happily too; he did not conquer Austria. As for the Sudentenland, the French abondoned it and Hitler ordered his troops to depart it if there was any resistance whatsoever.
Reply
#36
(07-25-2009, 10:57 AM)Melita Wrote: You misunderstood the point of my post, which was really about German identity in the Third Reich as a primarily Roman construct. I was talking about Britons, and their tribes. The dates I had in mind: c.43-410 AD. And the Romans never did succeed in subduing all of Britain.

Hmm.  No, I did not misunderstand your post.  I understood it.  I just wanted to correct the anachronism of calling the Britons "English."  And, yes, I know that the Romans never succeeded in subduing all of Britain -- I never disputed that, in case you thought I did (?).  
Reply
#37
(07-25-2009, 11:00 AM)didishroom Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:53 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:46 AM)didishroom Wrote: Hitler didn't even care about Poland; I believe he just wanted a port in Poland.

Are you familiar with the concept of Lebensraum?  Are you familiar with Hitler's routine?  He would make a reasonable demand and then manipulate the situation to get an unreasonable result.  If Hitler got Danzig and the Corridor, he then would have pressed forward to get the rest of Poland.  When he took the Sudetenland, he went on to establish a "protectorate" over Bohemia and Moravia and strong-armed the leaders of Slovakia.  He forcefully conquered Austria.  Etc., etc.  And what Hitler did to Poland once he conquered it shows well enough what his intentions were:  annexation and German colonization.  His henchmen even abducted "Aryan-looking" Polish children and sent them to Germany to be raised by Germans as Germans.  

The Austrians voted him in, and happily too; he did not conquer Austria. As for the Sudentenland, the French abondoned it and Hitler ordered his troops to depart it if there was any resistance whatsoever.

The Sudetenland is in France now?  You'd better consult your sources. 
Reply
#38
(07-25-2009, 11:03 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:57 AM)Melita Wrote: You misunderstood the point of my post, which was really about German identity in the Third Reich as a primarily Roman construct. I was talking about Britons, and their tribes. The dates I had in mind: c.43-410 AD. And the Romans never did succeed in subduing all of Britain.

Hmm.  No, I did not misunderstand your post.  I understood it.  I just wanted to correct the anachronism of calling the Britons "English."  And, yes, I know that the Romans never succeeded in subduing all of Britain -- I never disputed that, in case you thought I did (?).  

Ok. I corrected myself in my first response to you btw (re. "Britons").
Reply
#39
Also, Didishroom, Hitler took over Austria by sending his armies into the country.  That is conquest.  Or are you referring to the grossly unfair phony plebiscite that Hitler held after he'd already occupied the country? 
Reply
#40
(07-25-2009, 11:07 AM)Melita Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 11:03 AM)Bonifacius Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 10:57 AM)Melita Wrote: You misunderstood the point of my post, which was really about German identity in the Third Reich as a primarily Roman construct. I was talking about Britons, and their tribes. The dates I had in mind: c.43-410 AD. And the Romans never did succeed in subduing all of Britain.

Hmm.  No, I did not misunderstand your post.  I understood it.  I just wanted to correct the anachronism of calling the Britons "English."  And, yes, I know that the Romans never succeeded in subduing all of Britain -- I never disputed that, in case you thought I did (?).  

Ok. I corrected myself in my first response to you btw (re. "Britons").


Yes, I saw that and I acknowledge it.  I just got the impression that you thought I was objecting to your characterization of the extent of the Romans' conquests in Britain.  You're right -- they conquered all of what is now England but not all of what is now Scotland.  We should be on the same page now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)