• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Subjects that interest you (history, events, academia, etc.)

Andalublue said:
Just as the Plantagenets and the Hannoverians were truly 'international' monarchs, Knut and the House of Denmark were also undeniably English too.
Click to expand...
Well, he was undeniably Danish (not English, not Anglo Saxon) but I agree that he won the English throne prior to ascending to the Danish one.

His Dad was something of an invader already from what I recall, as, subsequently, was he.

But yeah, Canute was quite a character, his europolitics often understated in their importance.
 
Chagos said:
Well, he was undeniably Danish (not English, not Anglo Saxon) but I agree that he won the English throne prior to ascending to the Danish one.

His Dad was something of an invader already from what I recall, as, subsequently, was he.

But yeah, Canute was quite a character, his europolitics often understated in their importance.
Click to expand...

He was King of England. That makes him as English as William the Conqueror, Henry II, Richard the Lionheart, William III, George I, George II, or Victoria. He has been referred to as Cnut (Knut/Canute) the Great for centuries and every bit as deserving of the epithet as Alfred.
 
Andalublue said:
He was King of England. That makes him as English as William the Conqueror, Henry II, Richard the Lionheart, William III, George I, George II, or Victoria. He has been referred to as Cnut (Knut/Canute) the Great for centuries and every bit as deserving of the epithet as Alfred.
Click to expand...
Wooo-hooh-hooh.

Conceded, mate, conceded. :mrgreen:
 
Andalublue said:
Yeah, that's a problem. Who wouldn't be swayed by those unbelievably powerful and magnificent plays? Unfortunately, they were work of fiction described as 'histories'. They weren't historical any more than Apocalypto, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves or Braveheart were 'historical'.
Click to expand...

Let's compromise on "historical fictions." ;) Shakespeare wasn't a fool (Or was he in the best sense of the word?) and certainly produced plays that were "pleasing" politically. Art isn't required to be "accurate," but what I find fascinating is the influence those plays have had on the ordinary person's understanding.

I guess I should define "ordinary" as somebody who read the plays in a high school or college English class. The real history, I suspect, is largely unknown to those who aren't interested in those times. And so the facts are far less well known than bits and pieces of stage entertainment.

Ironic, that.
 
Andalublue said:
Fair points all. Apart from the last. Alfred isn't the only English monarch given 'The Great' title. Knut (Canute) the Great was truly worthy of the title too. He ruled the greatest empire of any English sovereign until Victoria.
Click to expand...

But Cnut was the King of Denmark, who through conquest became the King of Denmark, Norway, England, and Sweden. And after his death, his 2 surviving sons held the throne for a total of 7 years before the House of Wessex regained the throne.
 
SheWolf said:
Is there a subject, event, or time period that interests you or you're curious about?

Do you spend your free time watching documentaries or reading about something in particular?

Tell us what you're interested in, and let's share interesting facts and recommendations.

:)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've gotten hooked on the story of the Fitzgeralds from the old Irish history. It's such an amazing story that tells so much about the history of all of Ireland and particular Ulster, and that part is not directly, but indirectly. It also tells so much about American history indirectly as well.
 
Oozlefinch said:
But Cnut was the King of Denmark, who through conquest became the King of Denmark, Norway, England, and Sweden. And after his death, his 2 surviving sons held the throne for a total of 7 years before the House of Wessex regained the throne.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the 'but' at the beginning of your post. What you say is true, but doesn't contradict anything in my post. The fact that his successors were inept just highlights his achievements even more.
 
SheWolf said:
Is there a subject, event, or time period that interests you or you're curious about?

Do you spend your free time watching documentaries or reading about something in particular?

Tell us what you're interested in, and let's share interesting facts and recommendations.

:)
Click to expand...

In college I took "Ancient Literature". Initially I wasn't that thrilled about taking it, but it seem to depart from the status quo types of classes that qualified as a credit course under the category of English. We were require to take 4 semesters. They consisted of 2 grammar type courses and 2 literature type courses.

Any who, I was pleasantly surprised at the incredible imaginations of people who lived eons ago. But the stories I read offered some real insight into human evolution. I know that we usually associate evolution from a scientific perspective. However, I'm not talking about natural section or adaptation types of evolution, but rather the advanced type of thinking by a few that sparks the imagination of many others, which in turn nudged humanity's development perhaps at a much more rapid rate had the ancient authors not existed.

Thanks...
 
SheWolf said:
Is there a subject, event, or time period that interests you or you're curious about?

Do you spend your free time watching documentaries or reading about something in particular?

Tell us what you're interested in, and let's share interesting facts and recommendations.

:)
Click to expand...

Being an academic, I spend both my personal and professional time on this, but I read a lot on:

1.) Physics and mathematics. I pretty well hate most popular science and math though, although I've met a fair few of them.
2.) Political history and philosophy.


To be honest, outside of academic papers and Wikipedia (usually in the reverse order), I really hate reading material. I would much rather watch someone talk, and then when needed, find the citation and read it. Unless it's a formal text, it's very unlikely for me to crack open a popular book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom