Was Joan De Ark a man? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13908581
Ireland is part of Britain is it?


It's not part of England, and could rightly be said to be part of the British Isles (though some would say the latter term is incorrect, it's at least clear—and since this is a thread about Joan of Arc it's not worth getting into).

There were two countries fighting the French: Burgundy and England, Not 'Britain' because there would be no country called that until 1707 and that was when two countries merged into one just over 100 years afterthe Scottish King added England to his realms.


Right, and "England" looks like this at the time:

Image

Irish nationalists included?


Any jingoist, yes.

Did you use terms like "British" when dealing with Medieval England in your alleged Phd? The Irish Historians I know rather frown on trying to bring modern causes into medieval history. You say you 'lived there' as if the National University of Ireland was a single place


I didn't deal with Medieval England in my PhD. I'm well aware of the university system in Ireland.

I've seen plenty of Americans flying the Tricolour in Massachussets and Connecticut outside their homes. Indeed the most pathetic jingoist Irish nationalists never seem to have been born in the republic. Plenty of them with American accents.


Cool story! Thanks for sharing!
#13909398
Right, and "England" looks like this at the time:


No it didn't.

You are making a rather elementary mistake of equating "England" with lands held either directly or by fief by the Plantagent family.

When William The Bastard became King of England England did not became part of Normandy and nor did Normandy become part of England'.

William was King of England AND Duke of Normandy.

When Geoffrey of Anjou left his Angevin territories to Henry II upon his death those territories did not become part of England, indeed strictly speaking he owed feu to the King of France for them which rather demonstrates that they were not, indeed The Channel Islands are still not part of England. Indeed Kings of England were very rarely in England during Norman and Angevin times because they didn't consider themselves English. Indeed we refer to the "Angevin" empire not the 'English"

The War at the time of Jeanne D'Arc was not England versus France. It was a claimant to the French Throne fighting the incumbent and both using the troops of their various possessions to do it. The Plantagenet claim was more legitimate than the Valois in any case.


France and Ireland was no wore "England ' in 1430 than Scotland was England between 1603 and 1707, Hanover 'Britain' from 1714- 1837 or for that matter The 26 'southern' counties of Ireland were not part of the UK between 1921 and 1948.
#13910261
No it didn't.


Obviously not, but since you defined the side against the French as being only England and Burgundy, then by that same logic England would have had to have looked like the picture depicted.

You are making a rather elementary mistake of equating "England" with lands held either directly or by fief by the Plantagent family.


And you're making the rather elementary mistake of equating "Britain" with lands held either directly or by fief by the Plantagent family.

As I mentioned in my first response to you, there is no great modern terminology that someone can't immediately point holes in. Which is why you grant a certain amount of latitude in said descriptions. Saying, "The Romans," isn't exactly right in reference to some of the people in Gaul 40 BC, but we allow that latitude because it would take ninety pages to properly contextualize what every single status of every single group of people in the Roman Empire meant in their relation to the city of Rome.

The fact is that the nation, as you are apparently trying to defend it, didn't even exist for some time. Reference to England as the predominant area of power of one side in the 100 Year War is, and always has been, a perfectly appropriate term so long as we know that the most basic background behind the notion of states at the time.
#13910434
And you're making the rather elementary mistake of equating "Britain" with lands held either directly or by fief by the Plantagent family.

How on earth do you work that out?

I Equate the island of Britain as a Geographical expression, I equate the political expression of 'British' with that pertaining to the British state of 1707 to this day

Reference to England as the predominant area of power of one side in the 100 Year War is, and always has been, a perfectly appropriate term so long as we know that the most basic background behind the notion of states at the time.

And Britain definitely isn't. It is clear that you harbour some sort of emnity to Britain in the way that some Irish Americans do, you seem to have gone to Ireland to immerse yourself in rebel culture and you want to 'Bash the Bruddish' any way you can, this being a clear example. Next you will be lauding the films of Mel Gibson.

Puffing yourself up as an authority on history whilst claiming to live in Rebel city itself indulging your need to try and wear 1916 as your own clothes does not make your medieval analysis any stronger.
#13910485
I even fully admit that it's anachronistic. It's pretty clear that the issue is really only an attempt to try and personally attack me for some reason.
#13910501
Yeah, you did explain well why you used an anachronism and it's a fair reason. I don't fucking understand what the problem here is. I lulzed over the last ten posts trying to figure it out.
User avatar
By Suska
#13910533
I hate to contribute to a thread with "Was Joan De Ark a man?" as its title. Maybe I should leave it but TIG has sort of blessed this mess... It got me thinking.

The way I heard it St Joan felt she was defending the old ways and in a way the church was right. Probably I'm getting this from Graves and I realize some people find him suspect, I feel like that wasn't the source anyway. Maybe Shaw? Chesterton? (some interpretation of the court papers?) To Joan the geography of France was a female deity superior to Monarchy or Christ. She was provincial, I take it, heir to a legacy more like present Basque ways than anything else I can think of. She was a territorial patriot and from where she came women didn't sit on side lines. It was suggested there was a larger legacy that confirmed this view, peasant lore of that time, previously and still around a bit. That the role she took would have been familiar to her before hand, rather than inspiration or insanity, she was a priestess in an older sense.

I've done it. I've posted in a thread called ""Was Joan De Ark a man?" and I've made a cogent case that she was in fact a neolithic feminist. It does seem odd to me - how often in history do you get solid evidence from a deliberate examination to answer such an oddball question. Was she a man? 'na man, we checked that.' Was she Androgen intolerant? 'ah... we didn't have that test - but boy... if only'
#13910546
don't fucking understand what the problem here is.

The problem is an erzatz Irish nationalist using a an inaccurate term as part of an Anti British agenda. He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]