Comments by "earthstick" (@earthstick) on "The Anglosphere: The West’s Last Hope" video.

Well he is a Turk.
5
You mean the empire the Normans started?
2
@jamesmccann355 The Saxons and Danes were still here after the Norman invasion and so those people took part, but I argue the Saxons did not initiate or lead. What I mean is that the Saxons had about 500 years of free rein and where else did they conquer from England? Not even Wales or Scotland. They lost to the Vikings and King Cnut, then finally to the Normans. All Britain's exploits happened after. The Anglo-Saxons had 500 years of opportunity and yet nothing. Within a few generations of Norman rule, we were, for better or worse, crusading around the world.
2
@jamesmccann355 Yes, there is a marked advancement in those periods. But Britain lost its empire, and America ascended after WWII. The very people who call themselves Anglo-Saxons have the power again, and in barely a generation everything looks rather shaky. I don't know if there is anything to this, but there seems to be a guilt embedded in the colonies. At least some of America exhibit a guilt for taking the country from the Native Americans, although the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians do not seem to have quite so much. But I reason that the Anglo-Saxon holds dearly the notion of consent being required for lawful rule. This makes their position untenable because the Anglo-Saxon has always invaded and taken lands from the inhabitants without their consent. The Norman monarchs on the other hand saw themselves as the instruments of God. God does not require consent to rule because God is the greatest and has no equal. To require consent would be to deny that God is the greatest. Instead, you either accept God's rule or he kills you. So the psyche of God's instrument is not weakened by guilt.
2
@jamesmason8436 Yes ok, but I use them as an example because they succeeded the Saxons. The Saxons did very little IMO. But doesn't our monarch descend from William?
1
@jamesmason8436 And Anglo-Saxon rule ended in 1066. So why are we still calling ourselves Anglo-Saxon? They had about 600 years of rule, and it ended almost 1000 years ago. They contributed somewhat to our history, but they left very little in the way of artefacts, they did very little outside England. Common law must be their biggest contribution. Law by consent, well I think that is weak anyway. They gained England by a combination of force and deceit, so by their own code it is unlawful. So do they follow the law of might is right? Well, they lost fair and square in 1066.
1
@xotan And the Anglo-Saxons did not speak English. Look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Written during the reign of Alfred The Great, but not in English. If you want to read it in English, then you will have to read a translation - to English.
1
The Anglo-Saxons could not defend England. They did not extend England's influence beyond its shores during their time. Britain and it's empire began after the Normans. I do wonder if this obsession with the Anglo-Saxon past is why the 'Anglo-sphere' is failing, or is it because the Anglo-Saxons who buggered off to America are in charge?
1
@Horizon344 Half a millennium after the Norman conquest is a millennium after the Saxon invasion. During their time, the Saxons had every opportunity but did almost nothing. Almost immediately after the Norman conquest, Britain was extending outwards.
1