Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.[/quote]
Hey buddy, it’s all the same to me, but you might want to aim before you shoot. I’m just sayin.
That isn’t anything. It’s just a category for any conflict. They place rebellions as “war” as well; conflict would be a better worded category. They’re just playing loose with the meaning of “war” to make a nifty little category. You’re really desperate if you think this proves anything. To make the “Norman Conquest of England” a war in which the only military part of it was the Battle of Hastings is really grasping for straws. Why don’t you use the standards you expect of me: find it in the literature.[/quote]
But it wasn’t the only battle! It went on for weeks! Obviously it was a war! You are the one grasping for straws here.
It proves that most people think that there is no fundamental difference between a battle and a war, any more than they think that there is a fundamental difference between a sandwich and a meal.
You were the one saying that the US could have a battle in Syria but it wouldn’t be an act of war!
What is your point, for crying out loud?
The Battle of Hastings was the only part of the Norman Conquest that was military? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
The battle and military engagements lasted a day and the consequences were already known that day. It might have taken a week for him to finally wear the crown because they didn’t have jets back then, but to call that a war – every village was surrendering to him because of the Battle of Hastings. It was finished, no more battles, no war.