britain

ronbyrne2005

a friend said this to me "if britain hadnt colonised us it would have been the french or spanish anyway so which woul you have prefered?" i said i never really thought about it?we could be speaking french or spanish now!

netwhizkid

Chances is we'd be speaking Irish and Ian Paisley would a little known Catholic Curate in some part of Co. Antrim.

gurramok

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

a friend said this to me "if britain hadnt colonised us it would have been the french or spanish anyway so which woul you have prefered?" i said i never really thought about it?we could be speaking french or spanish now!

I'd say that their rule would of been alot less bloody than the British as both those countries were strong advocates of the catholic religion and so were the occupied at the time.

mike65

eh? what does that mean? No Catholic shall do harm unto Catholic, like that rule has held firm down the years!

Mike.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Odo... no changeling has ever harmed another

what have you done

Irjudge1

Do you have to choose another country? I'd rather stick with the brits. I don't believe for a second that our history would be less bloody if had been another country had taken us over.

Anyway was it not the Normans who first conquered the country so the French in reality are to blame anyway.

Or the vikings. Oh my god we are so sad we were beaten by the Norwegians and the Danes. At least they left Carlsberg behind. Probably.

Diorraing

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

a friend said this to me "if britain hadnt colonised us it would have been the french or spanish anyway so which woul you have prefered?" i said i never really thought about it?we could be speaking french or spanish now!

Do you really think that the Irish were a race destined to be colonised? Bit of an inferiority complex if you ask me. There is nothing to suggest that either the French or the spannish had any interest in colonising us at all. Who knows, if the Brits hadn't colonised us, perhaps we would have colonised them

Irjudge1

Diorraing wrote:

Who knows, if the Brits hadn't colonised us, perhaps we would have colonised them

Yeah but it's like that old joke. Where would we have kept the prisoners?

flogen

I don't see why that's true, it's a bit of an apologists viewpoint. It would have happened anyway, so we should be happy it was the British, after all they treated us so well.
There's just as much chance if not more that we would have lived happily (as we had been), speaking Irish and praising Jesus. Of course, modern Ireland would be very different economically, I'd be interested to see how the Celtic Tiger would have panned out if we spoke Irish, in my amateur opinion it would have been very different indeed.

ronbyrne2005

Diorraing wrote:

Do you really think that the Irish were a race destined to be colonised? Bit of an inferiority complex if you ask me. There is nothing to suggest that either the French or the spannish had any interest in colonising us at all. Who knows, if the Brits hadn't colonised us, perhaps we would have colonised them

by our small nature we were destined for colonisation,the brits and european countries had large armies/navies etc

Flex

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

by our small nature we were destined for colonisation,the brits and european countries had large armies/navies etc

i dont think so. had it not been for the great famine we would have a fairly big population right now. i think we would have been an independant nation if the british hadnt occupied us. i dont think we ever would have been a leading power in europe, but i think we wouldve been one of the stronger nations.

i think it wouldve been too much hassle for france or spain to occupy ireland

mike65

No oil!

Mike.

Irjudge1

I don't think the French or the Spanish would have considered conquering Ireland as too much hassle when you conisder the usefulness for attacking the British.

Zombrex

Both the French and the Spanish would have loved, absolutely loved, to get their hands on Ireland ... why? Cause it would be a perfect spring board to attack England. You could land troops easily from Scotland to Wales. If England had not invaded us in the early part of the 2nd millenium AD, they defo would have during the middle of the millenium, if only to establish a military presents to stop foreign invaders from using Ireland as a spring board.

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

Both the French and the Spanish would have loved, absolutely loved, to get their hands on Ireland ... why? Cause it would be a perfect spring board to attack England. You could land troops easily from Scotland to Wales. If England had not invaded us in the early part of the 2nd millenium AD, they defo would have during the middle of the millenium, if only to establish a military presents to stop foreign invaders from using Ireland as a spring board.

If England hadn't invaded us, we would have had a proper army capable of defending the country. The French and Spannish may well have viewed Ireland as the perfect spring board to attack England but would they have been willing to fight a tough battle, risk continuous harrassment from natives just to have a springboard. I think not.

angry_fox

If england had never invaded Ireland, it would have been invaded more than likely by the french, they would have had the opurtuniy to open up two fronts in england, from the soulth and from the west. Maybe we would have asked for help from the British to help get rid of the invaders.

Winning Hand

angry_fox wrote:

Maybe we would have asked for help from the British to help get rid of the invaders.

Like strongbow then? Oh wait, that was asking the brits for help killing other irish

All pointless supposition

Maskhadov

Personally Im not too hung up who came here. The country is doing alright now and its just all history.

Any new genes from Europe coming into the country is generally a good thing and all those invasions throught the ages did us the world of good.

One thing I did think about was watching Eddie hobbs. He noted that we kicked out all the northern europeans when brian boru won that battle (the only battle we won :P) back in 1015 or something. And it is very concidential that we cant plan a piss up in a brewry let alone infastructure.

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

If England hadn't invaded us, we would have had a proper army capable of defending the country.

What are you basing that on?

rsynnott

gurramok wrote:

I'd say that their rule would of been alot less bloody than the British as both those countries were strong advocates of the catholic religion and so were the occupied at the time.

What a silly thread...

And if it had been Spain, we might just be emerging from fascism. No thanks.

Diorraing

Wicknight wrote:

What are you basing that on?

Brian Boru as mentioned earlier. Hugh O'Neill at one stage had between himself and allies in excess of 20,000 armed men - at a time when the English were trying to fully establish control in Irelnad. Therefore I hold that had the British not invaded us we would most likely have had a very strong army. The French and Spannish would surely have felt that it would be to much hassle attacking Ireland for the sake of opening another front up with England

psicic

If we hadn’t been under English control, it's hard to imagine what would have taken place. Let's not forget, there were several 'Kings' in Ireland before the incursion of Strongbow, and any of them would have 'invited' in forces from any of the major powers to help in their internecine warfare. I'd say it would have been impossible to view an Ireland without at least an attempted English presence.

HOWEVER, it was internal politics in Britain that a) was a root cause of the Famine, b) was responsible for relegating Dublin from a premiere capital of Europe and Second City of the Empire to a second-rate city with delusions of grandeur, c) was responsible for the running down of certain areas of industry and commerce(e.g. Cork).

Unpossible

we would most likely have had a very strong army.

I disagree, there was always a lot of infighting between the celtic chieftans (even in the battle of Clontarf there was Irish and Vikings fighting on both sides).
Over the summer I read a book on Bunratty castle, at the beginning it gave the history of the families living there, it looks like there was never even universal opposition aganist the foreign invaders, everyone just wanted power.

So, Im not sure what would have happened if England had not colonised us. One of her enemies would probably have tried to use us as a springboard (as mentioned earlier), or if left alone we would probably have had a lot of political instability through the years.

Maskhadov

what does everyone think about the point of us being very bad at planning and that type of thing ? Its one part of history I would have changed.

Diorraing

Unpossible wrote:

I disagree, there was always a lot of infighting between the celtic chieftans (even in the battle of Clontarf there was Irish and Vikings fighting on both sides).
Over the summer I read a book on Bunratty castle, at the beginning it gave the history of the families living there, it looks like there was never even universal opposition aganist the foreign invaders, everyone just wanted power.

Perhaps then it would be adviseable to read a book about Hugh O'Neill and how all of Connaught, Munster and Ulster rallied behind him. He was, in effect, King of Ireland for most of the 9 years.
Yes there was a lot of infighting in Ireland, as there was in many other places. Ireland wasn't a country "as such" before the English/Norman attack. There were many different tribes but they were now starting to come together and Ireland was moving towards becoming a country under one rule. This never happened as a result of the invasion. Therefor I think it is safe to say that if England hadn't attacked us, we would have eventually been united under one King/Government meaning we would have had a large army which would have deterred the likes of France and Spain attacking us only for the purpose of using us as a springboard.
Of course, this whole discussion is hypothetical and no one cen really say what would have happened but I believe that to be a plausable outcome

Unpossible

Perhaps then it would be adviseable to read a book about Hugh O'Neill and how all of Connaught, Munster and Ulster rallied behind him. He was, in effect, King of Ireland for most of the 9 years.

Sure, can you recomend a few books about this period of Irish history? Preferably books that dont take a "romantic view" of our history.


edit: Im sorry but I cant help but think that Hugh O´Neils "kingdom" would have been short lived. I mean, once the common enemy was gone, why would the country have stayed united under Hugh, or under his heir (who would also have to be a strong leader to keep us united)?


sigh, maybe Im being unfair to our ancestors

Thank Christ it was England, because we speak their lingo.

Imagine all the Irish having to go off and learn Spanish...sure it's not even taught in most schools...

Flex

Diorraing wrote:

Perhaps then it would be adviseable to read a book about Hugh O'Neill and how all of Connaught, Munster and Ulster rallied behind him. He was, in effect, King of Ireland for most of the 9 years.
Yes there was a lot of infighting in Ireland, as there was in many other places. Ireland wasn't a country "as such" before the English/Norman attack. There were many different tribes but they were now starting to come together and Ireland was moving towards becoming a country under one rule. This never happened as a result of the invasion. Therefor I think it is safe to say that if England hadn't attacked us, we would have eventually been united under one King/Government meaning we would have had a large army which would have deterred the likes of France and Spain attacking us only for the purpose of using us as a springboard.
Of course, this whole discussion is hypothetical and no one cen really say what would have happened but I believe that to be a plausable outcome

I agree. I think Ireland would have became a 'proper' kingdom eventually had it not been for the invasion. If it hadnt been for the sheer bad luck of Brian Boru being killed at Clontarf i think the kingdom of Ireland he had established would have continued to exist. And the idea of having a few Kings in ireland subordinate to a High King wouldve been finished too after Brian had made himself Emperor of Ireland. I think someone like Brian Boru wouldve come along again. its all just scenarios about what 'might have been' though.

mike65

Deleted User wrote:

Thank Christ it was England, because we speak their lingo.

Imagine all the Irish having to go off and learn Spanish...sure it's not even taught in most schools...

Post of the Week!

Mike.

LordSutch

Looking at this thread from an Irish Unionist point of view I find the whole notion of Ireland being an Ex British Colony fatuous!
I was watching a documentary on RTE the other night about the so called war of independence (early 1920's) and I couldnt help noticing the large amount of Union Jacks flying all over Cork and Dublin, I am also aware that the Union Flag was flown by the vast majority of people in 1901 to welcome Queen Victoria into Kingstown harbour (Dun Laoghaire) I also know from my Grandmother (Born in Dublin British Passport) that most people back in the 1920's considered themselves Irish/British or vice versa! The whole concept of a Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, independent, Anti-British Nation has only come about relatively recently (if you scratch beneath the surface) and so, as a Northern Irish/British person whose flag is the Union Jack (or part of) - (see St Patrick's cross) I share so much of my culture/customs with all the peoples of the British Isles, both Gaelic & Non-Gaelic alike, the island of Britain is our next door neighbour they were once the Worlds Super Power and this Island was part of that Super Power (not by Force) but by choice as we still are in the North, and I think that the worst thing to ever happen in these islands was for the Republic of Ireland to leave the UK and the Commonwealth, specially (in the circumstances that it did) ...............

axer

ArthurF wrote:

Looking at this thread from an Irish Unionist point of view I find the whole notion of Ireland being an Ex British Colony fatuous!

Explains alot about unionism!

ArthurF wrote:

I was watching a documentary on RTE the other night about the so called war of independence (early 1920's) and I couldnt help noticing the large amount of Union Jacks flying all over Cork and Dublin, I am also aware that the Union Flag was flown by the vast majority of people in 1901 to welcome Queen Victoria into Kingstown harbour (Dun Laoghaire) I also know from my Grandmother (Born in Dublin British Passport) that most people back in the 1920's considered themselves Irish/British or vice versa!

You do realise Ireland wasn't independant from Britain until 1922 - hence the flags?! And then of course you have the plantations etc on top of that.

ArthurF wrote:

The whole concept of a Gaelic speaking, Roman Catholic, independent, Anti-British Nation has only come about relatively recently (if you scratch beneath the surface) and so, as a Northern Irish/British person whose flag is the Union Jack (or part of) - (see St Patrick's cross) I share so much of my culture/customs with all the peoples of the British Isles, both Gaelic & Non-Gaelic alike, the island of Britain is our next door neighbour they were once the Worlds Super Power and this Island was part of that Super Power (not by Force) but by choice as we still are in the North, and I think that the worst thing to ever happen in these islands was for the Republic of Ireland to leave the UK and the Commonwealth, specially (in the circumstances that it did) ...............

And we salute the Queen! (not!) In my head ideas like these can only be explained by the Stockholm Syndrome.
EDIT: Since when has the Anti-British Nation only come about recently? Should we bend over and let britain f.uck us up the ass again and be grateful?!

secret_squirrel

I think anyone who thinks Ireland could have escaped Invasion over the last 1000 is being Naive. Not even Britain managed that.

If you look at european history over the same time period its been a huge melting pot. Many nations that we take for granted now have only been around a relatively short time.

I think even if Ireland had remained un- molested (unlike imo) at best it would have been a shifting mass of nation-states and small kingdoms until very recent history. (bit like germany infact).

None of the major colonial and pre-colonial european powers treated their captured territories particularly well.

The major thing that ireland did have over the rest of europe is its Island status - which possibly might have fostered a sense of nationhood in time. But lets face it thats didnt really happen with Britain.

axer wrote:

Should we bend over and let britain f.uck us up the ass again and be grateful?!

This is relevant how? I worry about people who cant divorce speculation about what might have been and the situation now.

Maskhadov

hmm....very intresting outlook ArthurF

Ajnag

I think that the worst thing to ever happen in these islands was for the Republic of Ireland to leave the UK and the Commonwealth, specially (in the circumstances that it did) ...............

Our gdp per capita is now greater then britian after only a hundred years. Due to the factors of various northern european power struggles by proxy of religion britians rule here was harsh and uncaring with less focus on infrastructure and economic development which make's our independance no mistake.

but by choice

Home rule or lack of, Penal laws? Are these the democratic mandate's you speak of?

I am also aware that the Union Flag was flown by the vast majority of people in 1901 to welcome Queen Victoria into Kingstown harbour (Dun Laoghaire)

Hence the derogatery term west brit :rolleyes:

I share so much of my culture/customs with all the peoples of the British Isles, both Gaelic & Non-Gaelic alike

Thus I presume the mandate of unionism now spreads to the continental congress in washington? How much modern culture/costoms do you now share with the us?

samb

I think that the 1916 rising and the War of Independance were a mistake.
If we had stayed part of Britian and peacefully requested independance we would have it by now. If Scotland want independance they will get it. Irish nationalists had a voice in Westminster and many british such as Gladstone were far from hostile towards them.
I think by now we would have a united republic without the troubles of the last 35 years and a better relationship with the British.

Laguna

Here's a mind **** for all of the folk who love to hate the 'Brits' who invaded us in the 10th century...


Have you heard of the battle of Hastings in 1066?, no?, oh okay then, it was a 'minor' skirmish that involved the Anglo-Saxons against a group of chaps called Normans (who were from Normandy, France, fact fans!). The Norman invaders to Britain, happened to beat the British and take control of the majority of what is regarded as present day England. When this country was subsequently invaded and colonised (for want of a better word), would you not rationalise that it was indeed the NORMANS (i.e. FRENCH) who came and took over your country?.:eek: :eek: :eek:

Another thing people seem to forget when talking about the hardships the British forced upon the citizens of this country for the occupation is that the British treated their own people AND the peoples of their other colonies just as bad, if not worse.

For the record, it's extremely naive to think Ireland would have received any better treatment from one of the colonial superpowers if they had been colonised by someone else. You wonder if things would have been better if you'd have been colonised by France, *cough* have a look at Algeria, *cough* Vietnam *cough* the majority of continental Africa...

Spain?, ****, I won't even bother coughing this time, have a look at what they did to their colonies in South America and the West Indies, they wiped out the Inca and Aztec races from the face of the Earth.

Which other colonial superpower shall we discuss next?

Hotblack Desiato

No doubt there were plenty of English people who hated Cromwell, but most of them had the sense to keep quiet for their own sake, and British history paints him in a good light. There are Cromwell Streets everywhere, and he made the BBC's Top 10 Britons poll. He wasn't tried for treason, he died in bed - still in power.
http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs8.htm

In March 1658 he delivered a two hour speech to the Lord Mayor, aldermen and councillors of the City of London, as usual speaking largely extempore, and he responded vigorously to problems and events during spring and summer 1658. ...
The sickness which eventually killed Cromwell probably began at the end of July 1658 ... He also suffered pain in his stomach, back and elsewhere about his body, was given to vomiting and diarrhoea and at one point was found to have an irregular pulse. The fifth and, as it turned out, final bout began on 2 September and death occurred at around 3pm on 3 September.

Laguna

Yep, you're right, I got the treason part mixed up with Guy Fawkes as when I was posting I was thinking of a conversation I had with my dad this evening about Fawkes, my mistake, the digging up and hanging, drawing and quartering is still accurate though!.

Unpossible

would you not rationalise that it was indeed the NORMANS (i.e. FRENCH) who came and took over your country?.

Well the normans were decendants of....dum dum duuuummmm.... viking settlers (apparently Norman comming from the word Norseman).

But now we are opening up a whole new debate, because the anlgo saxons came from what is now Germany. So it brings up the question, who were the original british & where are they now? (according to a BBC documentary I saw a few years back, where they DNA tested a bunch of people from the UK & Ireland, most of them are here in Ireland, or at least we have the closest DNA to them).

But like I said that is a whole new debate on who the "British" really are.


note: Im not a historian but am very interested in these things, correct me if my points are wrong

axer

samb wrote:

I think that the 1916 rising and the War of Independance were a mistake.
If we had stayed part of Britian and peacefully requested independance we would have it by now. If Scotland want independance they will get it. Irish nationalists had a voice in Westminster and many british such as Gladstone were far from hostile towards them.
I think by now we would have a united republic without the troubles of the last 35 years and a better relationship with the British.

I very much doubt it considering when they passed the home bill in 1914 the unionists kicked up a storm and started using violence with the UVF. The army (down in the curragh) refused to attack their own. So what makes you think that would have changed by today? If we hadn't gotten a grip on some of the island when we did we would be like Scotland or Wales now with no prospect of a republic in sight (sorry, but they are not even countries!). They are too mixed with England etc now for the whole country to vote for independence. The 1916 rising and the war of independence were not mistakes, the mistake was probably accepting only a portion of the island (but I can understand why it was accepted). The Republic of Ireland would have consisted of the whole of this island a long time ago had it not be for those damn unionists!!

Seth Brundle

I reckon that if the British didn't invade us, the French and Spanish would have fought and lost many bloody battless to take over the place.
However, in the early 20th century the Americans invade us because we have a dangerous weapon of mass destruction

robinph

If Ireland hadn't been part of the British Empire or the French or Spanish etc, then it would have just meant that Ireland would have been fighting with the British, French and Spanish etc over the Americas and Africa for thier own empire. As it is Ireland can now claim they were not involved in any of that and pass all of the blame over to the British instead.

secret_squirrel

axer wrote:

like Scotland or Wales now with no prospect of a republic in sight (sorry, but they are not even countries!).

I suspect most scottish and welsh would strongly disagree with that point of yours.

axer

secret_squirrel wrote:

I suspect most scottish and welsh would strongly disagree with that point of yours.

I hope they would and I would hope that they keep fighting to become countries but the fact remains that they are not countries. They do not have seats in the UN and no other country recognise them as being countries and their head of state is Tony "I love Bush" Blair.

murphaph

axer wrote:

They are too mixed with England etc now for the whole country to vote for independence.

Yes, that disgusting Anglo-Saxon blood courses through their veins, not nice pure celtic, or is it viking or norman or african blood like the folks here! :rolleyes:

axer wrote:

The Republic of Ireland would have consisted of the whole of this island a long time ago had it not be for those damn unionists!!

With attitudes like yours is it any wonder that they don't buy the whole SFIRA "inclusiveness" line that Gerry Armani trots out.

Lots of countries that live next to eac other have had violent pasts and even bits of modern european countries used to be bits of the neighbouring country a hundred years ago. Borders are not fixed.

Flex

Another thing people seem to forget when talking about the hardships the British forced upon the citizens of this country for the occupation is that the British treated their own people AND the peoples of their other colonies just as bad, if not worse.

So what if they treated their own badly aswel. How does that rationalise coming to Ireland and treating the people here even worse?

For the record, it's extremely naive to think Ireland would have received any better treatment from one of the colonial superpowers if they had been colonised by someone else. You wonder if things would have been better if you'd have been colonised by France, *cough* have a look at Algeria, *cough* Vietnam *cough* the majority of continental Africa...

I think if a catholic nation like spain had occupied ireland things wouldve been better (ie. penal laws). Also i doubt france or spain would have carried out plantations like the british did, and i dont know how any nation couldve made the great famine any worse for us either. so id say things wouldve been better under some other rule, if we were indeed destined to be occupied.

dRNk SAnTA

My points are very simpistic but I've always thought about what Ireland might be like if we had been 'liberated' by the french, maybe in 1798 or something like that.

I wonder would Dublins prosperity before the act of union have continued. Dublin could now be full of fine french boulevards etc! Or maybe cork or waterford would have become the capital because of proximity to france. How would the french have treated us?

Of course if France controlled us, might Ireland have simply been a battlefield between England and France? Would we then have been occupied by the nazi's and been destroyed by bombing and war? If the nazis had controlled us might they have beaten Britain and won the war?!

Would we be giving out about how everyone speaks french instead of gaelic? and be moaning about the proliferation of english in the world aswell?

In my opinion our painful history has brought us to where we are today. If we didn't have this tough history, would we have had the courage to take the steps neccessary to become as successful as we are? You really have to be proud of the way we've climbed out of that hole. economically, we are now the shining light in europe. Speaking english has helped us a lot of course. The irish diaspora caused by the famine etc has surely helped also.

Oh, just like to say that I'm an Irish protestant (though my dads family are catholic) and i certainly have no unionist feelings. I'm quite happy to see that the irish are literally buying and selling england (property wise) and the fact that our per capita GNP is considerably higher than theirs. I'm not anti-english but its an amazing turn around which we should recognise and be proud of.

mike65

Flex wrote:

I think if a catholic nation like spain had occupied ireland things wouldve been better (ie. penal laws). Also i doubt france or spain would have carried out plantations like the british did, and i dont know how any nation couldve made the great famine any worse for us either. so id say things wouldve been better under some other rule,

When will people learn some history, when England first took an interest in this sceptic isle it was a Catholic country and second whats with the famine bit? Your logic is odd, would one expect the Spanish to have made a worse famine?

Mike.

secret_squirrel

axer wrote:

I hope they would and I would hope that they keep fighting to become countries but the fact remains that they are not countries. They do not have seats in the UN and no other country recognise them as being countries

I think you are confusing the meanings of country and state. Wales is a country but not a state.

their head of state is Tony "I love Bush" Blair.

Actually its the Queen.

Do you even check your facts before you post? Or would you rather spout inaccuracies that support your views?

axer

secret_squirrel wrote:

I think you are confusing the meanings of country and state. Wales is a country but not a state.


Actually its the Queen.

Do you even check your facts before you post? Or would you rather spout inaccuracies that support your views?

Yep sorry typo, i meant head of government - scotland is still not a country - maybe you should check before you post!!

Sorry but this is off topic I guess.

I think if the spainish or french had colonised Ireland instead of the English we may have faired out better. Firstly we would have probably had 3 languages growing up as we would have had to learn English because we would probably still do alot of trade with the UK and I'm sure Irish would have survived maybe not the same but some form of it. I don't think we would have been worse off anyways. At least we might not have had the problem that still lingers today with a division within such a small island as ours.