Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

2nd worst war for Irish?

24

Comments

  • #32
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    There was no cohesive national army or means of enforcing a national legal system or national trade rules - the basis of a structured society

    How many "Nations" can you point to in that era that had what you're describing?
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Shows your depth of reading, nothing I can do about that. Read more, try to spread your research over conflicting sources and compare them.

    No, I meant you just pulled Parnell and something about Queen Victoria's money out of nowhere. It was and is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, almost as much as Ireton!
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    ‘The least of their terrorist activities’ Rather confusing language. Give me one authoritative source where rape was used as a weapon of war in 1798.

    I don't see what's confusing about it. If you'd read anything about 1798 that language wouldn't confuse you one iota.

    Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it. If you'd read anything about the time you'd know about the terrorising of the people, largely peasantry, by Government forces. I gave you the title of one book where this is documented (various depredations including rape, but rape being one of the more lenient techniques), any other detailed history of the period should suffice also. Again, I'm surprised you're not aware of the campaign of terror against the populace at that time.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    they were committed by both sides, and Irish = good and English = bad is a load of BS.

    Indeed they were but I think the elephant in the room is that the English soldiers were committing atrocities in Ireland. There's no cases of Irish soldiers attempting to put an English rebellion down in England and committing atrocities over there.
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Not loads, but if you find just one acceptable reference it would be good ..... I’d expect anyone who claims mass rape in 1798 or any other period to substantiate their claims. Please do so.

    Now you're telling Porkies Pedro. I never claimed there was "mass" anything. Please stick to what I said. I said rape, along with far worse methods, was indeed used by Government forces in 1798, particularly before the rebellion even broke out. Pitch-capping was much more popular though, given that it would likely extract information out of the victim.

    I'm not going to go digging out all the books I read and find the chapters, nor am I inclined to go Googling something that should be fairly obvious to a history bloke like yourself. Check out the book I mentioned and another one that comes to mind is one called "The people's rising". Can't remember who wrote it.

    Pedro, Chicago Joe might have been onto something more than you'd like to know :)


  • #33
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Pedroibar is right: we have to look at the number of deaths, injuries and emigrations proportionally - in proportion to the population at the time.
    ChicagoJoe wrote: »
    Scullabogoue has been portrayed as a sectarian massacre when the opposite is the truth. Most of the loyalists killed were Protestants but a few were Catholics, most of the Rebels were Catholics but a few Protestants. The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

    Scullabogue was a hideous example of what happens when overwrought people lose their tempers. The people imprisoned in the barn were a mixture of planters and their servants - many of the servants Catholics who had stayed with their employers, probably in the hope of protecting them.

    The Volunteers had that day invaded New Ross, initially successfully, but then losing their discipline and streaming triumphantly through the town. The better armed and tactically educated British had attacked them in groups, especially targeting their medical tents, in what turned into a slaughter.

    In Scullabogue, the word of this slaughter came through to the people in the barn, and someone - with a very Irish name, which I can't remember offhand - mockingly played Croppies Lie Down on the pipes. The enraged and grief-stricken Volunteers attacked their hostages.

    Propaganda is always interesting, from whatever side it comes.


  • #34
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Jesus. wrote: »
    How many "Nations" can you point to in that era that had what you're describing?
    Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.
    Jesus. wrote: »
    Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it. If you'd read anything about the time you'd know about the terrorising of the people, largely peasantry, by Government forces.
    The 1798 Rebellion was plotted/initiated and broke out in Dublin, when some from the working class tried to take Dublin Castle and then went home rather quickly. The 'Rising' was a result of the influence of the ‘French citizens’ and revolutionary France and there was no ‘goading’ by yeomen or militia.
    Equally poor is your knowledge of the militias and their use. The Wexford Militia was not raised until 1793. It was created in response to the Napoleonic scare because the English army presence in Ireland was very small. The militias were manned by local volunteers, recruited mainly from the Protestant middle class but had many Catholics in the ranks and were led by the nobility or gentry, who initially paid the militia at their own expense. They were part-time soldiers, their role was to defend the Irish coast and your suggestion that “Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it.” is total nonsense.
    Jesus. wrote: »
    There's no cases of Irish soldiers attempting to put an English rebellion down in England and committing atrocities over there.
    Total non-seq. What has that got to do with the topic?
    Jesus. wrote: »
    ……. I said rape, along with far worse methods, was indeed used by Government forces in 1798, particularly before the rebellion even broke out. Pitch-capping was much more popular though, given that it would likely extract information out of the victim. ……… I'm not going to go digging out all the books I read and find the chapters, nor am I inclined to go Googling something that should be fairly obvious to a history bloke like yourself. Check out the book I mentioned and another one that comes to mind is one called "The people's rising". Can't remember who wrote it.
    Vague passing reference to a single book is not a source. (and “coincidentally” both titles you mention are the ones on the wiki article on the topic. ;) )
    Pitchcapping (and worse) came into use during / after the Rebellion, not before.
    Again you have failed to provide a valid source for your claims – you will find it very difficult to do so as almost uniquely to Ireland rape was uncommon in that period. There were instances, but they were few, and not confined to one side if you bother to research it. Most of the claims of rape in 1798 stem from politicised accounts written in a much later period e.g. Harwood in 1844. Similarly the centenary celebrations were less about the commemoration of battles/dead and were used more as a rallying mechanism for nationalism. Or, as Qualitymark says, Propaganda.
    With that level of argument there is little point in a discussion.


  • #35
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    The 1798 Rebellion was plotted/initiated and broke out in Dublin, when some from the working class tried to take Dublin Castle and then went home rather quickly. The 'Rising' was a result of the influence of the ‘French citizens’ and revolutionary France and there was no ‘goading’ by yeomen or militia.
    Equally poor is your knowledge of the militias and their use. The Wexford Militia was not raised until 1793. It was created in response to the Napoleonic scare because the English army presence in Ireland was very small. The militias were manned by local volunteers, recruited mainly from the Protestant middle class but had many Catholics in the ranks and were led by the nobility or gentry, who initially paid the militia at their own expense. They were part-time soldiers, their role was to defend the Irish coast and your suggestion that “Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it.” is total nonsense.

    I'm sorry but you're totally wrong there. Have you ever read a single book about the Rebellion? Pitch-capping and other forms of torture were used extensively in order to extract information and flush an inevitable rebellion out into the open. Pakenham stated that the Government as high as William Pitt himself urged such tactics for that specific reason. Yet you're calling this "complete nonsense"? Again, have you read about this subject at all?

    Once again, you've gone off on an irrelevant tangent talking about how the Militias were formed. I'm well aware of that and I don't know (a) why you thought I wasn't and (b) what on earth that has to do with what the Yeoman and Militias did prior to and during 1798? :confused:

    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Vague passing reference to a single book is not a source. (and “coincidentally” both titles you mention are the ones on the wiki article on the topic. ;) )Pitchcapping (and worse) came into use during / after the Rebellion, not before.

    I've never looked at a wiki article on this subject. No need to considering the books I've read but if you're trying to suggest that I've gone to wiki in order to give you a link to a couple of books, then that's pretty weak (you'd think I'd have given you the Author's name of the second book for a start :rolleyes:).

    Incidentally, does the wiki article reference any pre-rebellion Government torture/terrorism? If it references those books it might do.

    Your total ignorance of the subject is extraordinary regarding the use of torture prior to the rebellion. Pitch-capping was not used prior to the outbreak? Are you for real???
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Again you have failed to provide a valid source for your claims – you will find it very difficult to do so as almost uniquely to Ireland rape was uncommon in that period. There were instances, but they were few, and not confined to one side if you bother to research it. Most of the claims of rape in 1798 stem from politicised accounts written in a much later period e.g. Harwood in 1844. Similarly the centenary celebrations were less about the commemoration of battles/dead and were used more as a rallying mechanism for nationalism. Or, as Qualitymark says, Propaganda.With that level of argument and your lack of knowledge there is little point in a discussion.

    My suspicions about you when you went at Chicago Joe have been proven correct. Its actually you who's caught up in propaganda, the loyalist/pro-British kind. I can only presume that despite your Spanish sounding username that you're English or more likely, an Ulster Unionist, such is the denial of a fairly obvious and well-known piece of Irish history. Would I be correct in that assumption?

    Far far worse than rape occurred but I recall an account in Packenham's book (a Protestant member of the Anglo-Irish gentry btw, so the "nationalist propaganda" excuse can't be leveled at him) of a member of the Yeoman in Wexford saying something along the lines of: The Irish rebels are very fit, requiring many slashes of the sword to cut them down......To be fair to the rogues, tell me a man who wouldn't run red with rage when he sees his wife's petticoat being torn open?

    If I'm so inclined, I'll read the bloody book over again and come back to you with all these references but it really shouldn't be necessary if you knew anything about the period at all, Pedro. Though I think, like I mentioned above, there might be an ulterior motive for your denial of historical fact ;)
    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.

    You've quite a disparaging way of referring to Ireland of this time. Are you not aware of the period long before this when Ireland was a center for learning and manuscript making when Britain was struggling through the Dark Ages?

    The Beeb did a decent Docu about it once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxzM_Y0cYJA

    Such remarks do lead me to suspect your background and perhaps a bit of "The Irish were just a pack of savages" brainwashing having been drummed into you at some point ;)


  • #36
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Scullabogue was a hideous example of what happens when overwrought people lose their tempers.

    Unfortunately, the overwrought people who lost their tempers a long time before this were the "Hanging, shooting and burning Gentlemen" who terrorised a defenceless peasantry to their wits end, with massacres and widespread torture including murder and a lot more. Terrible and all as it was, its very understandable given the context of how something like this could happen in response. Its very regretful it happened at all but given the cruelty of the Government at the time its actually surprising to me that this and Wexford bridge were the only large scale reprisals committed by the insurgents throughout the rebellion.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Unfortunately, the overwrought people who lost their tempers a long time before this were the "Hanging, shooting and burning Gentlemen" who terrorised a defenceless peasantry to their wits end, with massacres and widespread torture including murder and a lot more. Terrible and all as it was, its very understandable given the context of how something like this could happen in response. Its very regretful it happened at all but given the cruelty of the Government at the time its actually surprising to me that this and Wexford bridge were the only large scale reprisals committed by the insurgents throughout the rebellion.

    Have you read Mary Leadbeater's Annals of Ballitore? The village of Ballitore, about half-and-half Quaker and Catholic, with a big Quaker school that had scholars from as far away as Norway, France and the Caribbean (and where both Edmund Burke and Napper Tandy had been schooled, at the same time), was in the centre of the Wexford/Wicklow/Carlow/Kildare axis where a lot of the fighting happened in 1798. So the sections of postmistress Leadbeater's diaries that deal with '98 are basically on-the-spot reports, from an unbiased source. Very interesting.

    https://archive.org/details/leadbeaterpapers01lond (Volume I)
    and
    https://archive.org/details/leadbeaterpapers02lond (Volume II)

    You might also like her pamphlet The Landlord's Friend, which gives a startlingly vivid vision of the Ireland of the early 19th century, when it was written:

    http://heatseekers.blogspot.ie/2012/12/the-landlords-friend-free-ebook.html (downloadable at the foot of the page).


  • #38
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.

    I don't think "Nation-state" is relevant to early medieval period tbh, it's more appropriate in the context of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.

    It's quite evident from the 12th century that Ireland was in the "proto-feudal" phase about 100-150 years behind the likes of England and France. However as was evident during the period feudalism over time actually led to decentralisation of power out from "monarchy" the prime example been what happened in the "Holy Roman Empire" after the Investiture Controversy in the late 11th century. Burgundy is another interesting example as it was technically part of the Kingdom of France. One could only say that the likes of France and England truly became centralised monarchies from the 15th century onwards. (Henry VII basically ended private baronial armies through clever use of tax)

    This "proto-feudalism" in Ireland can be see this with the adaption of the Trícha Cét as a system of land division based on military levies as well as the appearance of a diocesan system based on the realignment of church with mainland european system.

    If anything it was quite comparable to most other parts of Europe (Scandinavia and Scotland for example) at the time, the arrival of the Cambro-Normans of course introduced a centrifugal force into the whole proceedings.

    As for Nation building that's not an issue of the 12th century the syncretic historians had already completed the process of Nation building in the 8th century, along with the rewriting of Irish history at that time.

    With regards to "Cattle raiding" well the English had no problem carrying out Chevauchée during the hundred year war and that's in the mid 14th century. What's good for the goose is surely good enough for the gander ;)


  • #39
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I've not read them Qualitymark but thanks for the links. I'll see if I can get a hard copy cos I can't read a book like that. I'm trying to get my hands on Miles Byrne's memoirs aswell but I don't think the local library will lend it out.

    Is the guy that founded that school in any way related to Shackleton the explorer? He was from that part of Kildare too.


  • #40
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I've not read them Qualitymark but thanks for the links. I'll see if I can get a hard copy cos I can't read a book like that. I'm trying to get my hands on Miles Byrne's memoirs aswell but I don't think the local library will lend it out.

    Is the guy that founded that school in any way related to Shackleton the explorer? He was from that part of Kildare too.

    Yeah, all those Shackletons are related.

    You should get a hard copy easily enough - the Annals were brought out a few years ago in a new edition by Kildare Library Service, I think it was, and maybe the Athy Local History Association. Your local library should have it or be able to get it on interloan.

    The Landlord's Friend is a different matter; I only know of two copies of this 18th-century pamphlet in hard copy, both very delicate, one in the National Library of Ireland, the other in the Quaker Library in Stocking Lane. I'd be hesitant about reading it in hard copy - it's liable to fall to bits. But if you send me a message I might be able to rustle you up a PDF that you could print off, if you're interested enough.


  • #41
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    dubhthach wrote: »
    I don't think "Nation-state" is relevant to early medieval period tbh, it's more appropriate in the context of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.

    It's quite evident from the 12th century that Ireland was in the "proto-feudal" phase about 100-150 years behind the likes of England and France. However as was evident during the period feudalism over time actually led to decentralisation of power out from "monarchy" the prime example been what happened in the "Holy Roman Empire" after the Investiture Controversy in the late 11th century. Burgundy is another interesting example as it was technically part of the Kingdom of France. One could only say that the likes of France and England truly became centralised monarchies from the 15th century onwards. (Henry VII basically ended private baronial armies through clever use of tax)

    This "proto-feudalism" in Ireland can be see this with the adaption of the Trícha Cét as a system of land division based on military levies as well as the appearance of a diocesan system based on the realignment of church with mainland european system.

    If anything it was quite comparable to most other parts of Europe (Scandinavia and Scotland for example) at the time, the arrival of the Cambro-Normans of course introduced a centrifugal force into the whole proceedings.

    As for Nation building that's not an issue of the 12th century the syncretic historians had already completed the process of Nation building in the 8th century, along with the rewriting of Irish history at that time.

    With regards to "Cattle raiding" well the English had no problem carrying out Chevauchée during the hundred year war and that's in the mid 14th century. What's good for the goose is surely good enough for the gander ;)

    Interesting, I get your drift. However, to get a place at the “table/s” for the Westphalia business surely the delegates had to be a recognized as “states”? Also, the Dutch "conglomeration", Portugese and Spanish were "nations" a century before the Peace of Westphalia, had developed economies and had expanded overseas with colonies - France tried but failed. We were a small troublesome island with little going for us other than some fertile land and as a good location from which to weaken/attack England.

    The point I made was that Ireland was not a nation – the battle of Clontarf saw ‘Irish’ (if you include Dublin’s Danes) fighting under a very temporary sort of High King. The Normans succeeded largely because of enmity between the Irish petty kings; by the Elizabethan era (and calling all the Fitz’s and Butlers Irish) there was constant internecine strife, e.g. Ormonde and Desmond invariably were at each other’s throats and wreaking havoc, and when Carew arrived rather than fight him in a combined way many of the locals joined him to gain some advantage (the Cavanaghs come to mind). That is why I cannot see how Ireland could fit the description of nationhood ……

    Nor am I convinced that the chevauchee is directly comparable to the “creach”, the former being more a guerrilla-type strategy to weaken an enemy whereas the latter was a mixture of profit, high jinx and doing the neighbour one in the eye? That era is outside my comfort zone, so I’m open to correction.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    The Normans succeeded in England and Wales too, and nobody blames infighting. They blame the fact that the Normans were the cutting edge (literally) of military tech at the time.


  • #43
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    The Normans succeeded in England and Wales too, and nobody blames infighting. They blame the fact that the Normans were the cutting edge (literally) of military tech at the time.

    There is no doubt that the Normans were better equipped, had cavalry and tactically were better, but there was considerable English in-fighting before their arrival – the business of Harold’s brother Tostig who had to be defeated in the north and causing Harold to rush south to meet William with considerably less of his army. Also it is generally accepted it was a close-run fight, that the English would have won had they not rushed down from the ridge/high ground at retreating Normans, thus giving William the opportunity to use his cavalry. There were several battles of a cohesive English force against William over the following years, some of which were successful, even though most of the English nobility (i.e. leadership) had been killed. In the aftermath, the Normans adopted English ‘rules & customs’ and generally applied them, so it did not matter much to a peasant which master he served, his lot was the same, whereas in Ireland we did not put up any real opposition, our ‘rules & customs’ generally were quite different, were kicked out /overturned so assimilation took much longer.


  • #44
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Nationhood seems to be a modern concept that is shoehorned to fit into the perceptions are held of the past. Instead if we return that which say Herdotus held on a common belief system, language and shared history then Ireland comfortiabliy fits in this pattern. As per Davis' book forgotten kingdoms were many polities that failed to colease around these and we absorb by neighbours. In those the crucible of war was crucial to their development is the division of Holland and Beligium but even the before the rampant nationalism of the 19th century it would not be untoward for gentlemen to servr outside their home region, eg Prince Rupert or Metternich. That they did does not diminish their home countries sense of nationality.


  • #45
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Interesting, I get your drift. However, to get a place at the “table/s” for the Westphalia business surely the delegates had to be a recognized as “states”? Also, the Dutch "conglomeration", Portugese and Spanish were "nations" a century before the Peace of Westphalia, had developed economies and had expanded overseas with colonies - France tried but failed. We were a small troublesome island with little going for us other than some fertile land and as a good location from which to weaken/attack England.

    The point I made was that Ireland was not a nation – the battle of Clontarf saw ‘Irish’ (if you include Dublin’s Danes) fighting under a very temporary sort of High King. The Normans succeeded largely because of enmity between the Irish petty kings; by the Elizabethan era (and calling all the Fitz’s and Butlers Irish) there was constant internecine strife, e.g. Ormonde and Desmond invariably were at each other’s throats and wreaking havoc, and when Carew arrived rather than fight him in a combined way many of the locals joined him to gain some advantage (the Cavanaghs come to mind). That is why I cannot see how Ireland could fit the description of nationhood ……

    Nor am I convinced that the chevauchee is directly comparable to the “creach”, the former being more a guerrilla-type strategy to weaken an enemy whereas the latter was a mixture of profit, high jinx and doing the neighbour one in the eye? That era is outside my comfort zone, so I’m open to correction.

    Again applying standards of the 16th century onwards to the 12th isn't going to work. You mention the Netherlands which by 1649 had basically finished a 80 year war (with several major interludes) with Spain to arrive as a proto-state (federation with common foreign policy/trade and elected stadholder).

    However we go back to the 11th and 12th century you'd find that the County of Flanders, the Duchy of Brabant and the County of Holland (to name some of major players at the time) were in no way on the way to forming a unified "nation-state", if anything they involved in plenty of bouts of fighting each other. Not much different than say the actions of Tigernán Ua Ruairc as he expanded Bréifne at the expense of Mide.

    I do think you are confusing the 19th century concept of Nation-state with that of Nation, Ireland had clearly been defined as a Nation in latin texts (nacio) from multiple sources (including continental european ones) throughout this period.

    Of course interesting enough we see the same titles used in Latin charters from the 12th century (pre-invasion) in both Ireland and the low country. For example the pre-invasion charter which titles the Ó Flaithbeartaigh (Flaherty of Clann Murchadha) as comes (count) when it comes to land grant in the Trícha Cét of Clann Fergaile (modern Galway city -- barony of Galway). Whereas Dux is used for Taísech denoting obviously the military aspect of the title. (raising of military levy etc.)

    The situation in Ireland after 1200 is considerably different, not only do you see the extinction of titles connected to a semi-feudal system (Taísech, Maeraigecht etc.), quite simply the arrival of Cambro-Norman military technology (particulary heavy Cavalry) led to fragmentation, after all it suited the Cambro-Norman's for there to be infighting.

    Basically the situation in 1150 was the culmination of about 250 years of Centripetal force that had seen the rise of large "semi-province" (the provinces as we think of them were a thing of distant past at this time) kingdoms, whose position were basically akin to that of Dukes in mainland Europe. Each "Kingdom" undergoing centralisation force and then in turn contesting with each other. This process was actually accelerated by the arrival of the Vikings as Viking settlements and the control of which actually gave a steady independent source of income to "Province" Kings which was independent of normal levys/income they received from their subjects.

    What's evident is the entire Cambro-Norman feudal structure is built ontop of that of the pre-existing Irish system. So for example the Trícha-Cét survived as Cantreds, which in turn were divided into Commotes (term later replaced by Theodum -- latinised form of Túatha) below this the lowest level of division was the villata (which map onto pre-existing Baile Biataig/Baile estate system of pre-invasion Ireland).

    If the system of land tenure/ownership in Ireland was so foreign to the Norman's (along with general culture as you claim) why is that they didn't wipe the slate clean and create infeudation/subinfeudation of their own understanding? Instead they took over the pre-existing system and basically did little other then rename it (the bulk of the names been derived from original irish names anyways). Simply because the framework that existed was understandable in context of wider Northern Europe situation in the 12-13th centuries.

    You can't telegraph the situation in 1550 back 400 years to 1150, they don't map onto each other. For example we can see cases such as in Connacht where several Taísech Túaithe were removed on "Royal order" and replaced by one man to act as the equivalent to that of "Royal Stewart", for example Donnchad Mac Airechtaig, there are plenty of other examples of the exercise of "Royal power" (for example the placing of Conchobar Ua Briain as "king" of Tulach Óc by the Mac Lochlainn's in the 1070's, or appointments of various Ua Conchobhair's in charge of different Trícha-Cét's in 12th century Connacht).

    In comparison in the 1550's literally "every man is an island" or to use an english term "Captain of his Nation" which is fair enough in a land of war (Dar al-Harb, as described in Islam). When your goal is to keep your estates and if you lucky grow them then ye will adapt a beggar-thy-neighbour attitude. Of course given the actions of Tudor state such as the massacre at Mullaghmast (under terms of truce, with no conflict existing) it's hardly surprising that Gaelic grandees of the 16th century had to play a delicate balancing act with the Dublin Castle administration.


  • #46
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Anyways as to original question, the second bloodiest war involving Irish people is probably the Nine year war, though it's worth noting it's the culmination of close on 60 years of bloodshed and political violence.


  • #47
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Has anyone mentioned the various 16th- and 17th-century periods of genocide in Ireland when crops were destroyed and so on to clear the land for plantation? Or are we only talking about *military* worstness?


  • #48
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    ....


  • #49
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Well Warrington or Enniskillen weren't economic targets but there was others that were around that time like the Baltic Exchange bomb which caused more financial damage than all the other bombings in NI from 1970 up to that point & the Bishopsgate bombing the following year which nearly caused as much financial damage as the Baltic Exchange one.


    I'd also like to point out there is evidence that the Warrinington bomb wasn't the work of the IRA.


  • #50
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    I'd also like to point out there is evidence that the Warrinington bomb wasn't the work of the IRA.

    And 9/11 wasn't the work of Al Qeada....


  • #51
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Neither are relevant to the specific thread tbh


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    I remember a primary teacher saying that more died in Munster from the famines, plagues, bloodshed during and in the aftermath of the Desmond rebellions then from the great famine. He used to say that a third of the province died with many others emigrating though it was harder to do so then in the great famine. No idea of to the truth of any of this or how the later nine years war compares.


  • #53
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    I remember a primary teacher saying that more died in Munster from the famines, plagues, bloodshed during and in the aftermath of the Desmond rebellions then from the great famine. He used to say that a third of the province died with many others emigrating though it was harder to do so then in the great famine. No idea of to the truth of any of this or how the later nine years war compares.

    Desmond Rebellions were 1569–1573 and 1579–1583 and Nine Years War was 1592 to 1603, so really you could more or less regard 1569-1603 as 30 years or so of continuous horror.


  • #54
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Desmond Rebellions were 1569–1573 and 1579–1583 and Nine Years War was 1592 to 1603, so really you could more or less regard 1569-1603 as 30 years or so of continuous horror.

    Well all wars in the 16th and 17th century tend to be fairly horrorific be they in Ireland or on the Continent (French wars of Religion, 80 year war, 30 year war in 17th century etc.).

    I would suggest though the timescale is wider then just 1569-1603. The start of all this is probably June 1534 with the beginning of the Geraldine rebellion (which lasted till 1539). This focused Tudor eyes on Ireland, culminating in the surrender and regrant of Conn Bacach mac Cuinn Ó Néill who went from one of the kings "Irish enemies" to been a subject holding the title of "Earl of Tyrone". His example led to large levels of surrender and regrant and the granting of the title of "King of Ireland" to Henry VIII in 1542.

    Before 1542 the english monarch was just "Lord of Ireland" which meant basically just the "Lordship of Ireland" (which was restricted to Pale and the great Earldom's etc.), we thus see a major change where Gaelic grandees if in conflict with Dublin castle were no longer "foreign enemies" but "rebels against their just monarch", from a legal point of view this is an important change in justify conquest.


  • #55
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    I’d agree with much of that but add a few nuances – why is Surrender and Regrant (S&R) so rarely laid at the feet of the Irish chieftains as a cause of strife and why are they invariably held blameless?

    Whatever about the “right” of the Anglo-Normans outside the Pale to agree to the S&R of their land (occupied for about 400 years, and they were used to a feudal system), I suggest the Old Irish chieftains had no right to do so under the terms of land tenure (communal ownership) that prevailed and had existed for a few thousand years in Ireland. While I accept that tanistry was limited to a select small pool of relatives, the S&R effectively created dynastic families by granting hereditary title to a small number of Irish “New Aristos”. Any misbehaviour led to confiscation e.g. like that of O’Connor in Laois under Mary Tudor. Either S&R was never properly considered (which I doubt) or the Irish chieftains were greedy opportunists who wanted hereditary titles & all that goes with them for themselves and their heirs.

    Also, while English kings up to 1541 held the title of Lord of Ireland, the Kildares were for many generations the real rulers in the no.2 position as Deputy – Henry wanted to break that power hence the imprisonment of the Earl, and the execution of his brothers and son/heir Silken Thomas .

    Much of the death & depredation was a direct cause of the revolt by O’Neill, who I suggest was more into self-aggrandisement that looking for a “Catholic” independent Ireland. His army had to live off the land, hence the scorched earth policy of Mountjoy, who was supplied from England. The state of the country & people shocked even a battle-hardened Fynes Morryson. And much of that famine happened long after Kinsale when O'Neill had no hope of winning anything.


  • #56
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Pedro are you from the UK?


  • #57
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Pedro are you from the UK?

    Do you have a problem with where a poster is from? What has that to do with the topic of thread?


  • #58
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    No problem at all. But having first tried on another subject, you're now seemingly claiming that the 9 years war was the Irish' fault too. The only reason I ask as to your place of origin is because the only people I've come across before that constantly tried to twist Irish history in such a manner, were extremist Ulster Unionists!

    I'm just curious that's all.


  • #59
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Surrender and regrant wasn't altogether successful. It was one thing to surrender your land; it was quite another question whether you got it back. There's an interesting fictional treatment of this in Lady Morgan's The O'Briens and the O'Flahertys https://archive.org/details/obriensoflaherty01morg


  • #60
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    The Landlord's Friend is a different matter; I only know of two copies of this 18th-century pamphlet in hard copy, both very delicate, one in the National Library of Ireland, the other in the Quaker Library in Stocking Lane. I'd be hesitant about reading it in hard copy - it's liable to fall to bits. But if you send me a message I might be able to rustle you up a PDF that you could print off, if you're interested enough.

    I might get back to you on that, Quality. Cheers


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Jesus. wrote: »
    No problem at all. But having first tried on another subject, you're now seemingly claiming that the 9 years war was the Irish' fault too. The only reason I ask as to your place of origin is because the only people I've come across before that constantly tried to twist Irish history in such a manner, were extremist Ulster Unionists!

    I'm just curious that's all.

    I’m all in favour of people being curious, although it is not the first time you have called me names, although you deleted some. However, inferring the above from what I’ve written in post #55 shows a very poor knowledge of Irish history and a biased outlook with preconceived notions.

    I like to get behind the ‘story’ part of history and examine the facts and avoid the myths. What I find irritating about the ‘Nationalist’ version of history – a killer since mid-1800s and arguably earlier - is that anything British is bad and everything Irish is good, regardless of the facts. Question the status quo and you are called a revisionist and worse. That makes it hard to debate with self-described Nationalists. A typical example of “history derailed” is the response above showing a fictionalized account of surrender & regrant – a novel FFS – on a history thread.:rolleyes:

    I have not bothered to get involved with the adjacent Famine thread because it is futile to argue with idiots who do not do their homework. For example, look at a long, interesting thread here on the Famine. Coogan goes on radio/TV in Ireland and in the US, spouts s#ite and is believed because it is what people want to/are programmed to believe. In reality he is just a fat old man with white hair who wrote a few books on the IRA from a certain perspective and does not do his homework. Read what I wrote, backed up with links/sources on his Famine comments – in my posts #38 and and #42 in that thread. Read what others wrote and learn.
    By pushing people here I learn and if it gets up their noses TS, there are a few whose opinions I really value and respect, the others are just snake oil salesmen.

    Agus anois - do cheist: rugaidh me i n’Eireann, anois ta me i gconai anseo ach roimhe sin thar farraige, macleinn i bParis agus tar eis an tamaill sin ag taisteal ar fud an domhain. (Is trua liom e a ra, ta “Rechursa Ghramadai” beagnach dearmaidhe agam!)
    Agus tu fein?:p


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement