The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.
Digit wrote:Not strictly archaeology Shark, but your interests seem wide ranging. If nothing else it shows this government's continuing distaste for academia.
Sometime ago a minister suggested all such site were valueless and should be allowed to decay, with the proviso that a virtual tour was made available.
They make Phillistines look like art collectors this mob.
Yes, I was following that debate for some time...a real shame in the end. It seems to me to be of such vital importance to protect and preserve the little we have of our past, yet most people are far more passionate about who will win 'American Idol"...makes me wanna frow up....
Sorry 'bout the non archeological post, but as you noticed, my interests include more than what we find underground. British history, up to Liz the Oneth, is my passion, although of late I am clearly spending much of my time studying pre-Iron age Britain, as I find this to be fascinating stuff.
If your interests range that far Shark I'll thow this at you, most people in this country have no knowledge of it so I'll see it it catches you out.
Have found out about our King Louis yet?
Digit wrote:If your interests range that far Shark I'll thow this at you, most people in this country have no knowledge of it so I'll see it it catches you out.
Have found out about our King Louis yet?
Yes, actually! He's the answer to one heck of a trivia question!
It means, find that you are unable to answer, I was wrong. But very few people know of him, has been erased from official history in this country, quite why I simply don't know.
To clarify, King Louis: around 1215 he was invited in by the barons to help pursuade John to sign Magna Carta. I just read a book entitled '1215 the Year of Magna Carta, which of course mentions him.
The trouble with having such a broad range of historical interest, not to mention my other hobbies..., is that there are so many facts and stories to keep straight, it makes my head spin! I am finding that I am retaining less and less as I read more and more. Hmmmm..seems to be a pattern forming here
Nobody! He was Prince Louis of France. The Barons who opposed John after his attempts to avoid implementing the Magna Carta declared Louis the King. John eventually handed the country over to the Pope after being excommunicated so that England had three different rulers in quick order.
Both John and his elder brother Richard, (the Lion Heart) were a wasted space!
After all, the family were French!
Normans were but eventually they they became anglicanised. This was a number of generations after the Conquest, John was the youngest son and was born 1167, 101 yrs after the conquest.
The conquest of this country was what effectively kicked off the long series of wars twixt France and England. For example, William was Duke of Normandy and bound to the king of France, but he was also King of England and thus at least the equal of his Lord.
Later English kings retained lands in France, as did Barons, who thus served two kings simultaneouly, a diffiicult, and eventually, untenable position for them.
Actually, no, not in the nationalistic sense of the word. This would be like saying the Scots, Irish, Welsh, Saxons, and for that matter, the Danes who lived in Britain, were all english.
Not on topic, but I believe the major cause of the long standing English/French wars was the fact that England controlled great areas of what is now France, especially under Henry II, which the French kings wanted under their control.
Technically Shark those parts of France were under the control of the French King Louis VII as HenryII was a French Duke and owed allegiance to Louis.
But they both developed big ideas!
Digit wrote:
Later English kings retained lands in France, as did Barons, who thus served two kings simultaneouly, a diffiicult, and eventually, untenable position for them.
