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

800 years

2456710

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    That's a very good point and basically what I was getting at when I asked the original question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,011 ✭✭✭joebhoy1916


    In 1169, barely a century after the Norman invasion of Celtic/Saxon Britain gave rise to the entity of England, the expansionist feudal lords of England invaded neighboring Ireland, thereby beginning a history of Irish national resistance to foreign domination, now in its ninth century. For the first 450 years after the invasion, a Hibernicized Anglo-Irish aristocracy administered the area of Dublin and its surrounding "Pale" (the ring of land around Dublin within which the English were able to enforce their rule), while traditional Irish chieftains received feudal titles from English overlords, but maintained a semblance of native Irish society. Periodically the Irish clans rose in revolt against English domination, the last and most dramatic being the insurrection of the O'Neills of Ulster against Queen Elizabeth I during the 1560s. The failed rebellion contributed a host of aristocratic Irish emigres to France, and frightened the English sufficiently to cause them to seek more secure methods of controlling their colonial territory of Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Saruman wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
    Not English.. though our Normans probably came from there..

    Anyway before the british invaded we had no civilisation, no government, no infrastructure etc... Everything we have today we have from them... They may have raped the country of resources etc but they brought with it civilisation.

    Im happy being Irish and independant now but i do not have any bad feelings to the British. If they did not invade us then maybe the French would have as a strategic base against Britain.

    That is just speculation.Civilisation by their definition.


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


    In 1169, barely a century after the Norman invasion of Celtic/Saxon Britain gave rise to the entity of England, the expansionist feudal lords of England invaded neighboring Ireland, thereby beginning a history of Irish national resistance to foreign domination, now in its ninth century. For the first 450 years after the invasion, a Hibernicized Anglo-Irish aristocracy administered the area of Dublin and its surrounding "Pale" (the ring of land around Dublin within which the English were able to enforce their rule), while traditional Irish chieftains received feudal titles from English overlords, but maintained a semblance of native Irish society. Periodically the Irish clans rose in revolt against English domination, the last and most dramatic being the insurrection of the O'Neills of Ulster against Queen Elizabeth I during the 1560s. The failed rebellion contributed a host of aristocratic Irish emigres to France, and frightened the English sufficiently to cause them to seek more secure methods of controlling their colonial territory of Ireland.

    do you have a reliable source to back this up?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Most of what he is saying is technically correct, bar the date of the nine years war, it started in the 1590s. However I don't agree with the use of the term "expansionist" when dealing with this period, since it is a ninteenth century phenomenon. Also Irish chieftains only received titles from henry VIII, not before. Finally suggesting that there was a semblence of Irish society is incorrect, since it is well documented how much the Normans integrated into Irish society.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Saruman wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
    Anyway before the british invaded we had no civilisation, no government, no infrastructure etc... Everything we have today we have from them...

    Yes, the British enabled us to build canals, world class harbours, roads, lighthouses, universities, railways , fine architecture etc. All cutting edge infrastructure of the time. A third of the British administration in India was Irish. Dublin was one of the main cities of the British isles. We should feel lucky and proud of our relationship with Britain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Dublin ws offically the Empires Second City.

    Mike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    vesp wrote:
    Yes, the British enabled us to build canals, world class harbours, roads, lighthouses, universities, railways , fine architecture etc. All cutting edge infrastructure of the time. A third of the British administration in India was Irish. Dublin was one of the main cities of the British isles. We should feel lucky and proud of our relationship with Britain.

    us? who's "us" Vesp?

    Just as well the Brits invaded the rest of western europe and made sure they built all those lovely harbours and and universities. Oh wait, they didnt. :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    mike65 wrote:
    Dublin ws offically the Empires Second City.

    Mike.


    Thats right. We ( in the smaller island of Ireland ) were integrated with the bigger island of Britain just as much as Lanzarote was integrated with Tenerife. Or the north + south island of New Zealand. It was natural for these islands to be united in a united political union, just as the islands of Japan for example are united together.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Bambi wrote:

    Just as well the Brits invaded the rest of western europe and made sure they built all those lovely harbours and and universities. Oh wait, they didnt. :rolleyes:

    No the British did not invade the rest of Europe. In fact, in the not too distant past ( living memory of some ) the British ( along with the help of over 120,000 Irishmen ) defended themselves - and us by implication - from Europe. In a previous world war they also went to the defence of little Catholic Belgium, and also to the aid of France which was invaded. In the cold war they helped defend Europe from communism.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Gonetothedogs


    vesp wrote:
    No the British did not invade the rest of Europe. In fact, in the not too distant past ( living memory of some ) the British ( along with the help of over 120,000 Irishmen ) defended themselves - and us by implication - from Europe. In a previous world war they also went to the defence of little Catholic Belgium, and also to the aid of France which was invaded. In the cold war they helped defend Europe from communism.

    Vesp you are dead right, Britian did go to the aid of little holy catholic Belguim and the rights of small nations.. While to the west they had been ruthlessly occupying holy catholic Ireland and implementing policys of social, economic, religious and cultural apartheid. Due to the economic apartheid thousands of irishmen(including some of my kin) had to join the british army to provide a standard of living for their families.

    And don’t forget the righteous British were also complict in the death or immigration of over 2 million Irish during the 1800’s alone.

    I have no doubt that Britian had major hand to play in the infrastructural development of the country. But if it comes to a choice between us limping toward modernity or being subjected to the rule of an uncaring and ruthless occupying power, give me a walking stick every time.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    vesp wrote:
    Thats right. We ( in the smaller island of Ireland ) were integrated with the bigger island of Britain just as much as Lanzarote was integrated with Tenerife. Or the north + south island of New Zealand. It was natural for these islands to be united in a united political union, just as the islands of Japan for example are united together.
    Sahaklin ?
    The Kuril Islands ?

    It's only natural
    East Timor and Indonesia ?
    Cyprus ?
    Corsica being given to France
    And yet the Isle of Man still has it's own paliament


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Due to the economic apartheid thousands of irishmen(including some of my kin) had to join the british army to provide a standard of living for their families.

    And don’t forget the righteous British were also complict in the death or immigration of over 2 million Irish during the 1800’s alone.

    I have no doubt that Britian had major hand to play in the infrastructural development of the country. But if it comes to a choice between us limping toward modernity or being subjected to the rule of an uncaring and ruthless occupying power, give me a walking stick every time.

    lol lol. No wonder you are gone to the dogs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    And yet the Isle of Man still has it's own paliament

    Ours was where the B of I opposite Trinity is now. A very fine building indeed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Gonetothedogs


    vesp wrote:
    lol lol. No wonder you are gone to the dogs.

    I've always wondered what lol means?
    Other then that, great argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    It means laugh out loud.

    And thanks for the can of worms vesp.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    vesp wrote:
    Ours was where the B of I opposite Trinity is now. A very fine building indeed.
    note the word STILL


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    note the word STILL

    Well we all know it is STILL not our Parliament. We know where the "Dail" is now..... I assume you are one of the 99.9% of Irish people who recognises its legitimacy.

    Anyway, fine old building the Parliament opposite Trinity was , even though its now just being used as a bank. Beautiful architecture.....beautiful proportions and scale between the buildings etc...ignoring the modern traffic etc. Pity our modern architects ( since independence ) have not done such fine buildings which will stand the test of time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    And don’t forget the righteous British were also complict in the death or immigration of over 2 million Irish during the 1800’s alone.
    Before the famine the population of Ireland was 8 million, after the famine 4 million.

    And yet the official numbers are still approx. 1 million dead, 1 million immigrated.

    What happened to the other 2 million?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    vesp wrote:
    Thats right. We ( in the smaller island of Ireland ) were integrated with the bigger island of Britain just as much as Lanzarote was integrated with Tenerife. Or the north + south island of New Zealand. It was natural for these islands to be united in a united political union, just as the islands of Japan for example are united together.

    Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!

    England, Wales and Scotland are seperate countries with differing cultures and languages. As are the Basques and the Bretaignes, Native Americans and American Immigrants (or whatever they call the British, Irish, Dutch, French etc settlers that have arrived thee over the last three hundred years).

    European history is such that basically countries fell into two categories, the Conquerors and the conquered. Ireland was the latter and had the misfortune of being next door to one of the conquering nations.

    I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water,

    What has the body of water to do with it ? 'Tis only a short distance, on a good day you can see Scotland from N. Ireland. Besides, is Scicily independent of Italy?

    Our language, culture etc are not very different , as are our interests, sports, TV programmes etc.
    Everyone watches Man utd in English.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Gurgle wrote:
    Before the famine the population of Ireland was 8 million, after the famine 4 million.

    And yet the official numbers are still approx. 1 million dead, 1 million immigrated.

    What happened to the other 2 million?
    if 1 million immigrated then there are 4 million missing ;)

    the numbers are very round, also the 4 million was a lot later not in the same generation or even the one after , changes in inheritance meant that people got married later/had kids later/didn't have kids. Also there was continuous emmigration later on too and probably a higher mortality rate too for a while so there was a decline in population after the initial drop.

    google for info on the population at various dates and you will see the drop


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.
    During the times of the plantations we were treated very much second class even as savages in manner not unlike they treated those in the new world. Look at the penal laws. Very different IMHO to the way the Dutch were treated by the Spanish.

    Wern't more people killed in the aftermath of 1798 here than died in the reign of terror after the French revolution. ( Similar to the way that more people died because of the Doolittle raid on Tokoyo than died in either of the atomic bombings )


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.

    I'd be interested to hear why you think the Spanish or Portugese would have been worse.

    Offhand I can actually see some benefits to a Spanish conquest.
    The fact that Spain was predominantly Catholic would have meant no need for a state sponsored reformation, which would in turn mean none of the sectarian rancour that exists in certain parts of Ireland today.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Gurgle wrote:
    Before the famine the population of Ireland was 8 million, after the famine 4 million.

    And yet the official numbers are still approx. 1 million dead, 1 million immigrated.

    What happened to the other 2 million?

    No one knows the exact figure before the famine, because 1845 was a census year. So already you are starting from an estimate.

    And yes the figures generally given was 1million dead and 1million immirgrated. Which means there was 6million left in the country. I don't know where you got 4million, bar the latest census. The population remained in decline from 1847 on however, which is how it got from 6 to 4 million.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!

    The concept of the nation-state didn't exist until the 1800s, so there is enough of a justification from a historical perspective. Try not to let emotion get in the way of the topic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    The concept of the nation-state didn't exist until the 1800s, so there is enough of a justification from a historical perspective. Try not to let emotion get in the way of the topic.

    Maybe the nation state did not come about untill 1800 but surely the concept of a nation that of a people with same language, customs, cultural traits etc. existed.

    What exactly is the topic again? (just wondering as rereading the thread it seems to have gone off on a mad tangent and I notice your the OP)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Yeah it really has hit a tangent. Basically i wanted to hear (from a group who hopefully have an interest in history and getting to the core of events in the past) whether or not the idea of 800 years of british oppression is still valid?

    (regards common culture,language etc, that would have been a "decent" reason for the colonialisation of Ireland at the start.. It was more in response to ...go brath than anything else.)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    Yeah it really has hit a tangent. Basically i wanted to hear (from a group who hopefully have an interest in history and getting to the core of events in the past) whether or not the idea of 800 years of british oppression is still valid?

    (regards common culture,language etc, that would have been a "decent" reason for the colonialisation of Ireland at the start.. It was more in response to ...go brath than anything else.)

    Do you yourself think its still valid?

    The idea of the "800 years" is an abstract concept, made up of actual grievances and a percieved history of grievances that has to some extent become exaggerated or distorted through the years.
    Its hard to know if in this day and age it's still valid

    Though IMO the last century has seen as much evidence of British "oppression" as any previous centuries.


Advertisement