800 years

brianthebard

I'm probably opening a can of worms with this one, but I've seen the old "800 years of English oppression" line being trotted out in politics forum on the subject of the poppy a lot at the minute. Is this still a strongly held belief, that the English actually ruled over this country for 800 years with some sort of pre-Stalin Iron fist, only to be saved by the brave boys of 1916??

I don't mean to suggest that Ireland was always in a good position because of British rule, but certainly we can agree that 800 years is inaccurate at best and wrong at worst, and that the oppression part, well I think that's a matter of interpretation so perhaps we should leave that to one side for the moment.

Am I wrong? Is "800 years" what comes to mind when you think of Ireland's history from the Normans on?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

I'm probably opening a can of worms with this one, but I've seen the old "800 years of English oppression" line being trotted out in politics forum on the subject of the poppy a lot at the minute. Is this still a strongly held belief, that the English actually ruled over this country for 800 years with some sort of pre-Stalin Iron fist, only to be saved by the brave boys of 1916??

I don't mean to suggest that Ireland was always in a good position because of British rule, but certainly we can agree that 800 years is inaccurate at best and wrong at worst, and that the oppression part, well I think that's a matter of interpretation so perhaps we should leave that to one side for the moment.

Am I wrong? Is "800 years" what comes to mind when you think of Ireland's history from the Normans on?

beat me to it!!

From the Cromwell era I can understand, but 800 years seems a long time.

btw, since when were the Normans British??

Saruman

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.

brianthebard

I find it hard to pin down exactly when Irish autonomy ended but I imagine the flight of the earls to be a good starting point, just because it was the end of Irish resistance for a long time after. But before that there wasn't much in the way of English rule. And as far as I'm concerned the Normans don't count, not just because they were still Anglo/Franks, but also because they didn't establish themselves in most of the country and they didn't enforce rule-we've all heard the old chestnut of becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves"! Not what I'd call oppresion personally.

Manach

Offhand I would be one of the last people to jump on the anti-British bandwagon but I would not agree with the OP.
From my rather inexact studies, I recall that Ireland preNorman invasion had a culture that was known in Europe for its scholarly appitudes. Our level of technology was on par with a majority of Western Europe and as a people we had weathered the Norse/Viking invasions & re-asserted control over most of the country (except Dublin, nothing new there).

The 800 years might allude to the Crown authority, which had waxed and waned for centuries, but was still theorically the ultimate policatal authority in Ireland, starting from Strongbow's conquest.

brianthebard

I know what it alludes to, but that's the easy answer. First off, claims of crown authority are a lot of the time more symbolic more than anything. This is what I mean by inaccuracy. Just because Henry II claimed control of Ireland doesn't make it so. And so for someone to claim that we suffered 800 years of oppression is by extention inaccurate, since no credible historian could claim that Ireland was controlled by England for 800 years.

What is the point about pre-Norman Irish civilisation supposed to prove btw? I don't see how it contributes to an argument.

csk

I think the whole idea of the "800 years" comes from the Nationalist social memory that was created sometime in, I'm not sure, maybe in the 19th century? If you are looking for an exact grounding in fact I don't think it is possible.

When it is invoked especially in this day and age it is usually a generalistion or a bit of rhetoric. the fact that it is specifically 800 years is meant to imply that the oppression is ongoing and that it didin't end with the "brave boys of 1916".
If anyone can rememeber the bit in the film Michael Collins, which is the most accessible example I can think of, where the Free State Troops are taking over the barracks from the British. When Collins arrives the British officer says
something like, "you are seven minutes late MR. Collins"
to which Collins replies, "We waited 700 years you can have your 7 minutes."

I think the date it is supposed to have started is sometime in the 1200s and has to do with how the King of England's authority was first recognised and Ireland became a Lordship? (although I'm not precisely sure of the specifics here so don't quote me on that)

Manach

The pre-Norman section of my reply was a response to Saruman's point.
Sorry if it seemed off-topic.

brianthebard

Manach wrote:

The pre-Norman section of my reply was a response to Saruman's point.
Sorry if it seemed off-topic.

Oh right it makes sense now, thanks for that.

csk

Saruman wrote:

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.

I could not let this go unchallenged.
the fact is the British brought their version of civilsation and because of the "700 years" at least they were here they left their indelible mark on government infrastructure etc.

But don't take this as evidence that the Gaelic Irish who inhabited the island pre invasion were in any way less civilised than British.
This idea that the British were bringing civilisation to the uncouth savages was often used in defence of their aggression policies of colonisation not just in Ireland but everywhere.
the Gaelic Irish traditions of inheritance for example, were in some respects fairer and more democatic than the British method of the oldest son getting everything.

PHB

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.

That's really just untrue. Our kingship structure was comparable, if not better than, most of the kingship structures which existed in continental europe. Britain, while greatly, developed, was perhaps the exception to the rule. Furthermore, the Normans weren't the ones with the great administrative structure, it was the Anglo-Saxons, which the Normans just stole.

As for 800 years, well, for about 700 years Dublin had been under the control of the British.

Zebra3

Saruman wrote:

They may have raped the country of resources etc but they brought with it civilisation.

The only 'resource' they really 'raped' was the people.

Civilisation was here long before they arrived.

brianthebard

PHB wrote:

That's really just untrue. Our kingship structure was comparable, if not better than, most of the kingship structures which existed in continental europe. Britain, while greatly, developed, was perhaps the exception to the rule. Furthermore, the Normans weren't the ones with the great administrative structure, it was the Anglo-Saxons, which the Normans just stole.

As for 800 years, well, for about 700 years Dublin had been under the control of the British.

That's true, but it was hardly oppression was it?

Capt'n Midnight

1169 was a long time ago.

Anyway blame the pope.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

1169 was a long time ago.

Anyway blame the pope.

That's a bit crypic for me. can you expand a ittle.

mike65

Pope Ade is to blame

Mike.

Gurgle

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

In 1172, King Henry II of England invaded Ireland, using the 1155 Bull Laudabiliter issued to him by then English Pope Adrian IV to claim sovereignty over the island, and forced the Cambro-Norman warlords and some of the Gaelic Irish kings to accept him as their overlord. From the 13th century, English law began to be introduced. Initially, English rule was largely limited to the area around Dublin, known as the Pale, and Waterford, but this began to expand in the 16th century with the final collapse of the Gaelic social and political superstructure at the end of the 17th century, as a result of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland and English and Scottish Protestant colonisation in the Plantations of Ireland, which established English control over the whole island.

So less than 400 years outside the Pale.

'Some of the Gaelic Irish kings' I believe refers to an agreement that worked both ways - They paid him taxes and he supplied soldiers when the other kings got ambitious.

To the English kings, Ireland was a part of their Kingdom. The subjects here were entitled to the same rights and governed by the same laws as in England. If it had continued in this path, we would all be sitting here today as proud and happy subjects of the Queen.

It was only when Cromwell got here in 1649 that the Irish were beaten into submission and colonization started. And funnily enough, they got bashed by Cromwell because they supported the English royalty in their civil war.

He wasn't too popular at home either, he was 'sent' over here because the parliament were afraid of what havoc he would wreak running around England with his army:

In 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution.

Fratton Fred

So the English were responsible for bringing the Catholic church to Ireland.

No wonder you hate us

Ironic how these things work out isn't it.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

So the English were responsible for bringing the Catholic church to Ireland.

No wonder you hate us

Ironic how these things work out isn't it.

Actually it was the Welsh (St Patrick was Welsh)

Múinteoir

The genuineness of laudabiliter is still hotly debated historically. This bbc radio documentary on the subject is very interesting.


Anyway, even if laudabiliter was genuine, Strongbow et al came to Ireland as mercenaries working for Diarmaid Mac Murrough, not as church reformers. The original plan was just to help him get his kingdom back, but he died early on and Strongbow and the boys started to run amok and henry rushed over fearing that Strongbow might set up an independent kingdom in opposition to him. The whole affair was a lot messier politically than most people with various political agenda today like to imagine.

Fratton Fred

M&#250 wrote: »

The genuineness of laudabiliter is still hotly debated historically. This bbc radio documentary on the subject is very interesting.


Anyway, even if laudabiliter was genuine, Strongbow et al came to Ireland as mercenaries working for Diarmaid Mac Murrough, not as church reformers. The original plan was just to help him get his kingdom back, but he died early on and Strongbow and the boys started to run amok and henry rushed over fearing that Strongbow might set up an independent kingdom in opposition to him. The whole affair was a lot messier politically than most people with various political agenda today like to imagine.

This is one of the fascinating things with irish History. There are so many events which has shaped the way Ireland was governed. If Mac Murragh had not died, If James 1st won the Engiish Civil war, if William had lost at the Boyne. Even up to "what if Parnell had not fallen in love with a married women".

So many narrow misses.

mike65

The most interesting near miss was 1798. Francophone Ireland. :eek:

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote:

So the English were responsible for bringing the Catholic church to Ireland.

We were heretics before that, wern't doing thing s things the way Rome wanted us to do them.

Múinteoir

Fratton Fred wrote:

This is one of the fascinating things with irish History. There are so many events which has shaped the way Ireland was governed. If Mac Murragh had not died, If James 1st won the Engiish Civil war, if William had lost at the Boyne. Even up to "what if Parnell had not fallen in love with a married women".

So many narrow misses.

I presume you mean if Charles I had won the civil war. James I of England(James VI of Scotland) was his daddy.

You're exactly right though. The interesting thing is that had Mac Murrough lived longer and kept the Normans' superior military machine under his control, he might well now be regarded as a great icon, as the first king to unite an independent Ireland fully under his rule, rather than his current popular reputation as betrayer of the Irish to the English. But c'est la vie.

Fratton Fred

M&#250 wrote: »

I presume you mean if Charles I had won the civil war. James I of England(James VI of Scotland) was his daddy.

You're exactly right though. The interesting thing is that had Mac Murrough lived longer and kept the Normans' superior military machine under his control, he might well now be regarded as a great icon, as the first king to unite an independent Ireland fully under his rule, rather than his current popular reputation as betrayer of the Irish to the English. But c'est la vie.

Of course, King Charles (Which is why 90% of King Charles spaniels in the UK are called Oliver!)

Interesting that the Normans are widely accepted as being English, which is not the case. They would have had their base in England, but the Native English had one or two problems of their own with the Normans. The Normans were the first (and last) conquerors of England after the Romans.

In fact, the Cornish consider themselves to be the only “True” Cornish people because neither the Normans nor Romans made it as far as Cornwall. Although the Cornish had problems of their own with raiders from errr Ireland.

(I am open to correction on the above)

brianthebard

Just a point on the Normans being the first and only conquerors after the Romans, what about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks and Viking/Norsemen that came after the Romans? At one stage the Vikings held the Northern half of england, for a fairly long time afaik. And of course the Germanic tribes would make up a lot of what you call English around the time of the Norman conquest, although they wouldn't have thought of themselves as German at that stage. I would just like a clarification, not trying to be rude. (reading over it made me think it might seem like I was)

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

Just a point on the Normans being the first and only conquerors after the Romans, what about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks and Viking/Norsemen that came after the Romans? At one stage the Vikings held the Northern half of england, for a fairly long time afaik. And of course the Germanic tribes would make up a lot of what you call English around the time of the Norman conquest, although they wouldn't have thought of themselves as German at that stage. I would just like a clarification, not trying to be rude. (reading over it made me think it might seem like I was)

This is my opinion and may not be that accurate, but I would say that the Normans were considered conquerers because they took control of pretty much the whole country and William declared himself King (And set about building a very impressive castle in Windsor). The Vikings came and settled but were eventually ousted by Alfred the Great. The Angles and the Saxons more or less just came and settled after the Romans left and eventually became the indigenous population.

When you get back to his part of English history, there is a lot of myth and not much fact. You also need to remember that, like Ireland, England was made up of several different Kingdoms.

PHB

Well King Cnut or Canute, ruled over England as king, while also ruling over most of Scandanavia, and he was without a doubt not English.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote:

This is my opinion and may not be that accurate, but I would say that the Normans were considered conquerers because they took control of pretty much the whole country and William declared himself King (And set about building a very impressive castle in Windsor). The Vikings came and settled but were eventually ousted by Alfred the Great. The Angles and the Saxons more or less just came and settled after the Romans left and eventually became the indigenous population.

When you get back to his part of English history, there is a lot of myth and not much fact. You also need to remember that, like Ireland, England was made up of several different Kingdoms.

I can see what you are saying but I'm not sure it is entirely accurate. The Vikings weren't ousted, their power were reduced perhaps but they still remained. The Angles and Saxons did take over but there were people to be conquered when they arrived in England and that's what they did.

Fratton Fred

PHB wrote:

Well King Cnut or Canute, ruled over England as king, while also ruling over most of Scandanavia, and he was without a doubt not English.

was anyone in England that time English? certainly all the monarchy were either Angles, Danes or Normans.

iirc, Canute took power partly by invasion, partly by negotiation. William was the first to actually jump off a boat, kill a King and take the crown.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

I can see what you are saying but I'm not sure it is entirely accurate. The Vikings weren't ousted, their power were reduced perhaps but they still remained. The Angles and Saxons did take over but there were people to be conquered when they arrived in England and that's what they did.

Alfred ousted the Vikings from Wessex, which was pretty much the South of England I know that much, but my knowledge of that period is pretty poor and I can’t be arsed on look it up on Wikipedia

I guess it is kind of similar to King Henry II’s invasion of Ireland. By modern standards it is not an invasion, unless you want to use it for political means. I mean, when was the last time you heard an Englishman complaining about 1000 years of Danish oppression?

brianthebard

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

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.

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.

Fratton Fred

joebhoy1916 wrote:

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?

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.

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.

mike65

Dublin ws offically the Empires Second City.

Mike.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

vesp

Gonetothedogs wrote:

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.

vesp

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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.

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.

brianthebard

It means laugh out loud.

And thanks for the can of worms vesp.

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

vesp

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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.

Gurgle

Gonetothedogs wrote:

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?

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!