Dead body paraded around in Britain

[Dr Strangelove]

Who claims this?

http://www.necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#European See #5.

We're talking subjects of the King of France. You stated that these were subjects of the Pope, and now you're backtracking to say that there was a Papal commander. If that's the case, than Charles IX of Sweden is responsible for every death of the Thirty Years War by the same argument.

Well first the Pope sent a legate to excommunicate the Count of Toulouse to persuade him to co-operate. The Count's friends got upset and murdered the Legate. Phillip II sent troops. Simon Montefort led the war againt the Count, which was over fairly quickly, then under the direction of the abbot the despoilation of Languedoc continued another 20 years. Cathars were like Pokemons - they had to kill them all.

Umm? According to whom?

Louis Moreri in Le Grand Dictionarie Historique.

Again, by whom? They were invited to Translyvania first, and then were expelled. Then the Poles invited them to go to Poland and help them defend the Polish state. That's how they ended up in Kulmerland. They went there by invitation of the powers of the area to protect them from the Pagans. You seem to assume that the Pagans were entirely peaceful. They were not. They warred against the Catholics all throughout this period. The Knights were deployed and invited in response to these attacks.

Actually the Poles attacked first, invading Prussia in 1147, 1166, 1191, and
1215. Eventually the Prussians decided to carry the war to the Poles. That's when the Poles asked for help and that's when the Holy Roman Emporer gave Kulmerland and Prussia to the Teutonic Knights.

As for the 'preventation of procreation', you'll have to provide a source for that. Ahistorical nonsense.

James Mitchner in his epic novel Poland.

Umm, no. They inherited Livonia from the Brothers, and fought against Novgorod (who were most decidedly NOT Catholic), and against the Lithuanians. Lithuania stood directly in the crux between Livonia and Prussia, which is why they fought the Lithuanians. Than the Poles and Lithuanians allied to take on the Knights. The Knights lost and were incorporated into Poland until they were freed again when Brandenburg inherited it and took it all over.

Yeah I'm lumping them together because the Brotherhood of the Sword only existed for a few decades before they merged with the Teutonic Knights. The Brotherhood of the Sword was little different, they simply slaughtered the natives. Regarding Novgorod, thank you for your candor. Now I think we all understand you a little better, you really are the modern Catholic counterpart to al Qaeda.

Was Kulmerland Polish?

No, but when you've invaded a nation 3 or 4 times you can expect a little blow back.

They invited the Knights to crusade against the Pagans in Prussia and to help protect them from the Pagans.

Who were protecting themselves from the Poles.

Why would the Knights declare war against Poland and Lithuania? No, quite the opposite. Poland saw an opportunity, allied with Lithuania, brought them into the fold and went to war with the Knights.

Those dastardly Lithuanians converted To Roman Catholicisim to escape the wrath of the Holy Order? Well, Let them taste Teutonic Steel!

Was there persecution of Catholics in England in 1570? Absolutely.

Did the Pope recognize the Church of England? no. Did he actually call for Roman Catholics to depose Henry and Elizabeth? Yes.

Munster? Yes. Scandinavia, right again. The protestants wanted to convert the empire, and the trigger was Koln, and their attempt to gain 50+1 percent of the electorate. That - didn't happen, but it devastated the Empire with all of Europe intervening. Westphalia settled this, that the Empire would remain Catholic but the Protestants would remain free to practice.

The Treaty of Augsburg in 1555 was supposed to have guarenteed freedom of worship. The Protestant Evangelical League bent over backwards to appease the Emporer and the Pope, but the Emporer seized the Palatinate from a Protestant noble and shut down Protestant churches in Bohemia. They weren't going to sit around and wait for the Emporer to come for them.

[BlackCat]

Going along the lines that the Catholic church taught them to be absolutist, perhaps the Catholic church taught them other things as well. Like how to read. Rather important, no?

Sure, that is really true, I mean that was actually the cat church that learned peasants to read and write, yup, that is a fact (though, it hasn't any connection to reality). At the same time the papal church used latin wich no peasant could understand - they just knew when to kneel and stand up again.

[C0ckney]

Kingdom of Aragon, now, eh?

So what you're saying is that there was a casus belli? That seems to me valid provocation. Had they not executed the papal legate, this would not have happened.

Odd that, when you dig a little deeper that you find the truth.

do you even know what happened to the papal legate (hint: he wasn't executed)? or why? or the wider context?

seriously, it is clear that you know nothing about this conflict. it amazes me that anyone, anywhere, would employ you to teach history. it's like taking on an illiterate to teach english.

[BlackCat]

seriously, it is clear that you know nothing about this conflict. it amazes me that anyone, anywhere, would employ you to teach history. it's like taking on an illiterate to teach english.

Well, he's living in Texas and apparently teaching there - add the figures

[Ben Kenobi]

seriously, it is clear that you know nothing about this conflict. it amazes me that anyone, anywhere, would employ you to teach history. it's like taking on an illiterate to teach english.

You're right, I'm so illiterate that I earned a university degree and I teach for a living. And quite successfully I might add.

If the only argument you have is that "you are stupid", that means you've got nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

■John M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, London: Watts, 1902, p.254 ("It has been reckoned that a million of all ages and both sexes were slain.")
■Christopher Brookmyre, Not the End of the World (New York: Grove Press, 1998) p.39
■Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, (New York: Penguin, 1994) p.225: 1,000,000 Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians slain
■Dizerega Gus, Pagans & Christians: The Personal Spiritual Experience (St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 2001) p.195
■Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Orlando, FL: Morningstar & Lark, 1995) p.74
■Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1998) p.117

The earliest source is 1902. Fail. Zero primary sources. One published earlier than 1994. Published on a completely unreliable website - so you are assuming that website is telling the truth.

James Mitchner in his epic novel Poland.

As I said, Ahistorical nonsense. How on earth is this a reliable source?

Anyways, if you're citing JAM in Poland as your 'reliable' source, then I think we are pretty much done here.

You want to know how I knew you were full of ****? Because I've read that too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did the Pope recognize the Church of England? no. Did he actually call for Roman Catholics to depose Henry and Elizabeth? Yes.

I have that letter sitting right in front of me right now. You want to know what it actually says? It says that Elizabeth, in executing priests, is condemned by the Church. The pope only issued that letter after she was done executing most of them.

Munster? Yes. Scandinavia,

Umm, no. You need to learn some geography.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure, that is really true, I mean that was actually the cat church that learned peasants to read and write, yup, that is a fact (though, it hasn't any connection to reality). At the same time the papal church used latin wich no peasant could understand - they just knew when to kneel and stand up again.

What language was Gutenburg's bible published in?

[BlackCat]

Latin, wich all peasants of course could master after the papal institution had learned them to read and write in that language

[DaShi]

do you even know what happened to the papal legate (hint: he wasn't executed)? or why? or the wider context?

seriously, it is clear that you know nothing about this conflict. it amazes me that anyone, anywhere, would employ you to teach history. it's like taking on an illiterate to teach english.

*cough* Texas *cough*

Sorry, I have the flu.

[BlackCat]

*cough* Texas *cough*

Sorry, I have the flu.

Probably why you missed post #124

[kentonio]

I have that letter sitting right in front of me right now. You want to know what it actually says? It says that Elizabeth, in executing priests, is condemned by the Church. The pope only issued that letter after she was done executing most of them

You ****ing idiot, she didn't 'execute most of them' and the reason for most of the executions she did carry out was people plotting against her rule. The Pope played a big part in that plotting. The ridiculous bias you bring to history makes your degree not worth the paper it's written on. As for 'successfully teaching' you've previously admitted you make $10k a year teaching in a catholic madrassa.

[Ben Kenobi]

Latin, wich all peasants of course could master after the papal institution had learned them to read and write in that language

So I was right, the Church did teach people to read. I rest my case.

[Ben Kenobi]

You ****ing idiot, she didn't 'execute most of them' and the reason for most of the executions she did carry out was people plotting against her rule.

She defined 'performing mass' as treason. Ergo, all priests were treasonous and could be executed. Hence the eventual Papal bull. Sounds like tyranny to me.

The Pope played a big part in that plotting.

The papal bull was issued AFTER, not before, she had executed most of the priests in England for the crime of 'performing mass'.

The ridiculous bias you bring to history makes your degree not worth the paper it's written on.

If I was anti-clerical you'd be saying just the opposite. Odd, that.

As for 'successfully teaching' you've previously admitted you make $10k a year teaching in a catholic madrassa.

Right, that's because I teach Jihad against America. Oh, wait, no. I teach the US constitution. I teach American history. And my students have all, with the exception of 2 (roughly 4 percent), done quite well. That's, why I am a successful teacher, and you want to know something?

Your opinion? It doesn't matter what you think.

[kentonio]

She defined 'performing mass' as treason. Ergo, all priests were treasonous and could be executed. Hence the eventual Papal bull. Sounds like tyranny to me.

All absolute monarchy is tyranny you fool, yet even amongst monarchies there are degrees of viciousness. See Bloody Mary for more details.

The papal bull was issued AFTER, not before, she had executed most of the priests in England for the crime of 'performing mass'.

She didn't execute 'most priests' you dick, over the entire course of her rule she executed at most a few hundred Catholics. The popes were plotting the reestablishment of the Catholic church from the second Henry separated from the church in Rome, the idea that it was some reaction to Elizabeth is moronic. As always, learn some frikkin history.

If I was anti-clerical you'd be saying just the opposite. Odd, that.

I don't give a crap about you being a Catholic, but when you try and revise history purely because of your own beliefs then I'm going to call you on that. It's incredibly dishonest and pretty disgusting when it comes from someone who supposedly teaches history to young minds.

Right, that's because I teach Jihad against America. Oh, wait, no. I teach the US constitution. I teach American history. And my students have all, with the exception of 2 (roughly 4 percent), done quite well. That's, why I am a successful teacher, and you want to know something?

Your opinion? It doesn't matter what you think.

Isn't America the land where hard work and talent are duly financially rewarded? They pay you a ****ing pittance so surely I can only assume that you are an appalling teacher. Obviously from your posts here this does not come as a surprise.