History forum general discussion

HellsAngel

CDfm wrote: »

A bit off the current subject matter, a question I have is on the Battle of the Boyne heritage.

Wasn't the Battle of Aughrim more significant and I read that until a callender change it was the one celebrated.

Very, very interesting point. I had a quick search in wiki and Aughrim was indeed a more significant battle than the Boyne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aughrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_boyne

CDfm

HellsAngel wrote: »

Very, very interesting point. I had a quick search in wiki and Aughrim was indeed a more significant battle than the Boyne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aughrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_boyne

it would be interesting to know more about the battle itself but also its change of status and heritage/culture

MarchDub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No there isn't an extant equivalent - but this is not to diminish the significance of the 1641 Depositions as a source. One must factor in their origins, that they contain exaggerations, etc. The o'l formula of Who/What/When/Where/Why.

To ignore them would be akin to dismiss sources from slave plantation owners as there is no equivalent from the slaves. Or from the Conquistadors as their are no Aztec/Incan/Mayan sources.

The one point of view nature of the 1641 Depositions in, in itself, evidence to be considered.

I don't think anyone - including me - is suggesting that the depositions be ignored. On the contrary - there is a major study of them going on. The point is just to say that they do not tell the whole story and to think so would be a mistake.

Bannasidhe

MarchDub wrote: »

I don't think anyone - including me - is suggesting that the depositions be ignored. On the contrary - there is a major study of them going on. The point is just to say that they do not tell the whole story and to think so would be a mistake.

We are on the same page - what concerns me is when people refer to sources as 'right' or 'wrong' as this implies judgement. I prefer to view them as containing substantiated or unsubstantiated information. If a historian begins to 'judge' (usually this is in relation to the morality of an individual's actions or by comparison with current political ideologies/ social mores) they are on a slippery slope to non-objective personal opinion.

On a personal note I have spent many, many years researching the actions of Richard Bingham in Connacht - I personally feel he was ruthless, corrupt, manipulative, arrogant, needlessly brutal and should have been drowned at birth - as a historian I recognise he was tasked with doing a particular job i.e the subjugation of Connacht at no cost to Elizabeth's exchequer. This is exactly what he did. He played one side against the other, he 'acquired' land for the crown (under the stewardship of himself and his brothers) and used (some of) these funds to pay the army - bankrupting those he deemed the worst troublemakers in the process. At the merest hint of rebellion he acted without mercy and militarily he knew what he was doing - his defeat/massacre of a c2000 Redshank [Scottish mercenaries] force at Ardnaree, Mayo in 1586 while outnumbered by at least 5 to 1 is a master class in military tactics. However, when I am writing about him - it is not my job to 'judge' the morality of his actions but to objectively state what he did and why he did it - and to highlight discrepancies in the accounts (e.g. when statements on what he said he did, what others said he did and what actually seems to have happened contradict each other.) The reader can draw their own conclusions...

The 1641 Depositions are the testaments of a people who felt under siege, had witnessed the murder of their families and destruction of what they believed was their property. They perceived themselves as being on the frontier between civilisation and barbarism. The were mostly small holders/ tenants who had come to farm and create a better life for their families. The land they farmed had been seized due to the 'treason' of the previous holders - remember, all land under the Anglo system was held of the crown and ALL of the 'rebels' had at some point submitted to that same crown. Indeed, O'Neill owed all he had to Elizabeth who supported against Turlough Luimneach Ua Neill - The Uí Neill of Tir Eoghan according to the Gaelic system. To their way of thinking, they were loyal subjects of his majesty spreading civilisation in harsh conditions until the savage native rose up and slaughtered them - men, women and children. We hear the same tales from the Americas, Africa, Australia etc.

What happened in Ulster fit into a wider Irish/ Global context of conquest, plantations, colonisation, destruction of native cultures, social engineering, attempts at genocide, growing Sectarianism, genesis of Race Theories and the Counter-Reformation.

It is rare to have documents relating to those 'little' people who sought new lives in colonies - which is what the Ulster plantation was. As forerunner to the tactics later used in North America - tactics which had been, in turn, developed during the subjugation of the Scottish Highland lords - the Ulster Plantation had 'learned' from the 'mistakes' of King's/Queen's counties under Mary I, Munster under Elizabeth and of Lewis by James VI /I and was an exercise in social engineering radical at the time. The lessons learned there were transplanted to North America just decades later and then on to Australia. Ironically - it is an Irishman (Sheridan) who is often credited with the expression - 'The only good injun is a dead injun' - advocating the genocide of the 'barbarous' Native Americans so their land could be 'planted' by 'civilised' British settlers and the very concept of Irish republicanism was developed by the descendants of the Ulster planters.

Ray Gillespie published an interesting article in History Ireland on the Ulster Plantation as social engineering: (http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume15/issue4/features/?id=351) where he outlines the demographic make-up of the planters:

The ‘undertakers’ became the mainstay of the plantation scheme. Equal numbers of Scottish and English gentry received lands on which they would plant settlers. It is difficult not to see the hand of the king in this decision. Henceforth the Scots and English were referred to in official documentation as ‘British’.
This echoed the creation of Great Britain as a result of the union of the English and Scottish crowns in 1603 with the accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne. It also provides the first hint that the Ulster plantation was not simply an exercise in land redistribution but an attempt to blend together different ethnic groups in Ulster to create a new society, as envisaged by Sir John Davies.

The government laid aside 40% of the land for these undertakers. It was divided into precincts, each one under the control of a chief undertaker. Each precinct was assigned to either English or Scots undertakers, many of whom harboured deep suspicions of the other. Estates were divided into three classes: 2,000 acres, 1,500 acres and 1,000 acres. These allocations were much smaller than those provided for in the sixteenth-century Munster plantation, reflecting the concern of the crown that undertakers should not become too powerful. As a result, much of Ulster became a land of small estates, contrasting sharply with the large estates of Hamilton, Montgomery and the earl of Antrim in east Ulster and the massive land banks of the earls of Clanricard, Cork and Ormond in other parts of the country. The scheme required undertakers to remove native Irish and introduce settlers onto their lands within two years, and to erect a castle on their holding before 1613. They were also enjoined to live together in villages, town creation being an important element of the scheme.

Four other groups also received land in the plantation scheme. Some 208 native freeholders acquired 14% of the escheated counties. Included here were some men who had remained loyal to the crown during the Nine Years’ War, but the majority were minor figures who had risen to prominence following the removal of the top social layer of Gaelic Ulster with the flight of the earls and their followers. Secondly, 57 precincts were allocated to servitors who were government officials or former soldiers. These men, unlike the undertakers, could employ native Irish as tenants. Thirdly, the established church acquired 18% of the confiscated land to support a Church of Ireland ministry that had barely been visible in Ulster before the plantation.
... Finally, as part of the reformation of Ulster 1% of land was assigned to support schools that would not only educate the sons of settlers but also inculcate the rudiments of civility into the sons of the surviving native élite. The provision for these ‘royal’ schools, although small, hinted at the planners’ concern to build shared social norms through education.
...It is tempting to see the Ulster arrangements as simply part of a wider plantation policy being pursued in Ireland in the early seventeenth century. Plantations had already been initiated in Wicklow, Longford, Leitrim and west Offaly before the 1630s. Yet the Ulster scheme differed greatly to those implemented in other regions, involving more than simply landowning rearrangements, although that remained an integral part of the scheme. The Ulster scheme presented a unique, coherent blueprint for an evolving Ulster society. Thus it not only specified that settlers were to be introduced but also laid down the numbers of settlers who were to hold lands by particular types of tenure, stipulating the numbers of freeholders, leaseholders and tenants-at-will to be created on each estate.

So the Ulster Plantation was an attempt to create a 'British' identity after the 3 crowns were united under James I. Some of the methods employed included the imposition of urbanisation on a rural/pastoral community, the creation of a hierarchical society based on primogeniture and the provision of free education for the native people to 'civilise' them (i.e - make them 'British').

Interesting to note that 208 of these 'planters' holding 14% of the land were native Gaelic Irish - also that the 57 precincts allocated to former officials/soldiers were allowed to employ 'native' tenants.

Bannasidhe

HellsAngel wrote: »

Very, very interesting point. I had a quick search in wiki and Aughrim was indeed a more significant battle than the Boyne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aughrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_boyne

Some info on Aughrim from 'better' sources than wikipedia:

http://www.historyireland.com///volumes/volume1/issue1/features/?id=105
Info from documents in the PRONI (Public Records Office Northern Ireland):

The Boyne And After
William of Orange landed at Carrickfergus on 14 June 1690 to take command of his army. He brought with him 15,000 troops, which meant that there were 36,000 Williamites against 25,000 Jacobites at the Boyne. On the eve of the battle, William was grazed by a bullet but quickly put paid to rumours that he had been killed.
On the morning of 1 July, 10,000 Williamite troops led by Meinhardt Schomberg, the Duke’s son, marched up river to Rosnaree on the river Boyne. Tyrconnell was convinced that the main threat would come there and moved more than half his army in that direction. This allowed the main body of the Williamite army to wade across the river. The Jacobites were outnumbered and forced to retreat in disarray. It is estimated that some 1,000 Jacobites were killed and about half that number of Williamites.
James returned to France, his hopes of invading England shattered. The Jacobite leaders, notably Patrick Sarsfield, decided to continue the struggle. They regrouped their forces at Limerick, which they held throughout the winter of 1690-91. Baron de Ginkel succeeded Schomberg as Williamite leader and led the 1691 campaign. The letters from de Ginkel which are in PRONI testify to his professional conduct of the campaign. His greatest success, and the most severe loss for the Jacobites, was the Battle of Aughrim, fought on 12 July 1691. The Jacobites successfully defended Kilcommadan Hill outside Aughrim until their brilliant leader, St Ruth, was unluckily killed at a crucial time. The Williamite cavalry, led by Marquis de Ruvigny, took advantage of Jacobite hesitation and snatched victory when defeat seemed likely. It is estimated that over 7,000 Jacobites, including many sons of leading Irish families, were killed in the terrible scenes which ensued.

Article on the battle - note: as this is recent a subscription to History Ireland is needed to access it on-line:
http://www.historyireland.com////volumes/volume3/issue3/features/?id=113083

The author concludes:

Tyrconnell blamed Saint-Ruhe for engaging in battle. But blame also lay with others. Whoever supplied the wrong ammunition to Burke’s men at the castle was incompetent, but the English cavalry would probably have been able to get by anyway; they ought not have been able to pass the block of two infantry battalions at the causeway exit. Dorrington, who removed those battalions, should have replaced them, or sent them back when the situation in the centre eased and must, therefore, stand guilty of negligence. With Dorrington’s men absent, the English cavalry were met by Luttrell’s dragoons. Henry Luttrell has become a convenient scapegoat for the debacle at Aughrim; it has even been suggested that he ‘sold’ the passage for gold. Although Luttrell later became disenchanted with the Jacobite cause, no contemporary evidence suggests he was suffering disenchantment at Aughrim.
In terms of military incompetence, of failure to use initiative, of failure to anticipate orders, Dominic Sheldon has few equals: he saw the danger facing Luttrell yet did nothing but await orders. He must have known that Saint-Ruhe would have wanted him to charge the English, and that such a charge would have maintained Irish supremacy. No one deserves high command if he cannot act on his own initiative in such circumstances. The writer of A Light to the Blind saw this clearly

the commanding officers of the left wing, by abandoning their station without compulsion...were either traitors to their king and country, or...they showed a barbarous indifference for the safety of their friends and countrymen; or...were notorious cowards. And so let them keep their priding cavalry to stop bottles with.

Two days later, aware of the details of what had happened at Aughrim, Tyrconnell sent three messengers to France to appraise James of the situation and seek French reinforcements. He also prepared to hold Limerick. Of his messengers to France, only one survived.
The Irish army retreated to Limerick where Tyrconnell died. Sarsfield assumed command and, aware of the war’s cost to Ireland’s people, decided that the Jacobite cause would be better served by taking Irish soldiers to the continent to prepare for an invasion of the British Isles. And thus came about the Treaty of Limerick, and the end of the War of the Kings, in October 1691.

An article by Maolsheachlainn Ó Caollaí of Foras na Gaeilge.
http://www.historyireland.com////volumes/volume14/issue5/news/?id=114088

The last conventional battle in Irish history was fought on Sunday 12 July 1691 at Aughrim, Co. Galway. A 20,000-strong Irish Jacobite army under the command of French Lt.-Gen. St Ruth occupied a defensive position stretching over one and a half miles along the ridge from Aughrim village. On the opposite, north-east or Ballinasloe, side of the impassable bog that separated them was a similar-sized but better-equipped army, commanded for King William of Orange by the Dutch general Ginkel. He had three Ulster battalions and large contingents from England, Holland, Denmark and France.
Both sides displayed tremendous courage, and until late in the day the heaviest casualties were suffered by the attacking force. After about five hours of fighting, most of which occurred at either end of the Irish line, sections of Ginkel’s army succeeded in getting a cavalry force, two abreast, along the narrow tóchar or causeway near Aughrim village and across to the side of the bog occupied by the Irish left wing. The Irish musketeers in the ruins of the old castle who were covering the tóchar had run out of suitable ammunition, and other forces in that area had been depleted to support the right wing. This bridgehead was quickly augmented; St Ruth was killed by a chance cannon shot; and from then onwards everything went wrong for the Irish side.
Led by Brig. Henry Luttrell of Luttrelstown Castle, and in the hope of saving their property, a section of the Irish cavalry that could have stopped the breakthrough abandoned their infantry comrades to their fate and rode off to Loughrea through an area known ever since as ‘Luttrell’s Pass’. The poet Raftery expressed the tradition of treachery: ‘Ag Lutrell’s Pass ’sea díoladh na Gaelaigh, ar scilling a’s réal amach an péire’ [‘At Lutrell’s Pass the Gaels were sold for a shilling and sixpence for two’]. By nightfall the Irish army was all but destroyed, its dead numbering about 7,000; about 2,000 of Ginkel’s men were killed.
Aughrim heralded the end of the War of the Two Kings in Ireland, with eventual total victory for King William. Aughrim, not the Boyne, was the most significant battle of the war. The surrender of Galway and Limerick, the Treaty of Limerick, the departure of the remnants of the Irish army to France, the confiscation of land, the destruction of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy and the Penal Laws were all consequences of this defeat.
The battlefield of Aughrim is in fact a vast cemetery. The Williamite dead were buried, probably in several mass graves, the locations of which are not known. The bodies of most of the Irish were left unburied for over a year. The unburied dead were a cause of great hurt and were lamented bitterly in a traditional poem:

‘Tá leasú ag Ó Ceallaigh
Nach gaineamh é ná aoileach,
Ach saighdiúirí tapaidh,
A dhéanfadh gaisce le píce.’

[‘O’Kelly has topdressing,
which is neither sand nor manure,
but lithe soldiers,
who would do deeds of valour with a pike.’]

In 1842 the English writer William Makepeace Thackeray quoted lines from an early eighteenth-century Williamite verse play, The Battle of Aughrim, that was then being staged in Galway:
‘Nothing but dread confusion can be seen,
For severed heads and trunks o’erspread the green;
The fields, the vales, the hills, and vanquished plain
For five miles round are covered with the slain’.

The battle of 1691 was, in fact, the second Battle of Aughrim. Here, on 10 January 1603, with only 280 soldiers left, Ó Suilleabháin Béara faced and defeated an 800-strong English and Irish force.
In modern times the preservation of sites of similar significance to Aughrim is commonplace in many parts of the world. Culloden is an example. The Battle of Culloden on 16 April 1745, the last conventional battle fought in Scotland, was smaller than Aughrim; the dead numbered some 1,700. Since the end of the nineteenth century Culloden has been legally protected, the surviving structures preserved, access for pedestrians enabled and interpretation handsomely provided. Ongoing restoration work recently included the felling of a 50-year-old pine forest and the removal of the main road to Inverness, which in less enlightened days had been routed through the battlefield. Culloden is deservedly one of the premier tourist attractions in Scotland.

On other parts of the battlefield that are outside the 500-metre area, increasing numbers of ‘once-off’ houses are appearing. (Padraig Lenehan)
Over the centuries the physical features of the Aughrim battlefield, together with economic conditions, acted as a deterrent to excessive development. Despite the lack of any institutional defender, it still remains unspoiled to a surprisingly large extent. Now, however, it is being rapidly degraded. About 1970 Galway County Council diverted the main Ballinasloe–Galway road from the village of Aughrim and routed it directly through the battlefield. In recent years the council widened that section of road. In the process further damage was done, particularly to some of the ditches that almost certainly featured in the battle and indeed may well have been constructed or modified by St Ruth for his defensive strategy.
Owing mainly to the concerns expressed, not least in the North, more care is being taken with the preparation of plans for the new N6 Ballinasloe–Galway dual-carriageway, which is to pass close to Aughrim village. The road will not now go through the centre of the battlefield, as was feared, but it will cut off what are believed to be important sites connected with the battle and will destroy some of the physical context.
But worse is to come. As battlefields are unprotected by the National Monuments Acts, the local planning authority, Galway County Council, is the only public body possessing powers, limited as they are, to protect a battlefield by declaring it to be a place of exceptional historical interest. Naively, many of those who understand its historical significance, its national and international dimensions and its potential as a focus for North–South reconciliation assumed that the council was quietly ensuring that, at least in the matter of housing and commercial development, Aughrim would remain generally intact. Instead, in their County Development Plan 2003–2009, the only possible protectors of Aughrim selected a 500-metre radius from the centre of the village as ‘an appropriate boundary for development’. This entire area was involved in the battle. The causeway over which the Williamite cavalry crossed and the areas in which they first clashed in hand-to hand combat with the Irish infantry, the ruined castle from which the Irish musketeers covered the causeway, Luttrell’s Pass, several other identifiable battle-related sites and possible burial locations are all included. They are unprotected. Sites that are the common heritage of nationalists and unionists alike are now at the mercy of developers. On other parts of the battlefield that are outside the 500-metre area, increasing numbers of ‘once-off’ houses are appearing. In December 2005 an 11-acre site within the radius and near the causeway was offered for sale ‘for housing or commercial development’. It is a virtual certainty that this land and the human remains, Jacobite and Williamite, that may still be there will soon be covered with houses.
It is a feature of democracy that governments and public bodies usually have to respond to public opinion. A campaign of information and political lobbying for preservation and suitable development on the Culloden model, undertaken jointly by nationalists, northern unionists and others, could yet prevent another disaster at Aughrim and, in contrast to the events of 1691, result in enhanced mutual respect on both sides of the historical divide on the island of Ireland.

indioblack

This thread quickly evolved into a discussion on Anglo-Irish history.
I think that, with the best will in the world, subjectiveness is bound to enter the debate.

MarchDub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We are on the same page - what concerns me is when people refer to sources as 'right' or 'wrong' as this implies judgement. I prefer to view them as containing substantiated or unsubstantiated information. If a historian begins to 'judge' (usually this is in relation to the morality of an individual's actions or by comparison with current political ideologies/ social mores) they are on a slippery slope to non-objective personal opinion.

On a personal note I have spent many, many years researching the actions of Richard Bingham in Connacht - I personally feel he was ruthless, corrupt, manipulative, arrogant, needlessly brutal and should have been drowned at birth - as a historian I recognise he was tasked with doing a particular job i.e the subjugation of Connacht at no cost to Elizabeth's exchequer. This is exactly what he did. He played one side against the other, he 'acquired' land for the crown (under the stewardship of himself and his brothers) and used (some of) these funds to pay the army - bankrupting those he deemed the worst troublemakers in the process. At the merest hint of rebellion he acted without mercy and militarily he knew what he was doing - his defeat/massacre of a c2000 Redshank [Scottish mercenaries] force at Ardnaree, Mayo in 1586 while outnumbered by at least 5 to 1 is a master class in military tactics. However, when I am writing about him - it is not my job to 'judge' the morality of his actions but to objectively state what he did and why he did it - and to highlight discrepancies in the accounts (e.g. when statements on what he said he did, what others said he did and what actually seems to have happened contradict each other.) The reader can draw their own conclusions...

The 1641 Depositions are the testaments of a people who felt under siege, had witnessed the murder of their families and destruction of what they believed was their property. They perceived themselves as being on the frontier between civilisation and barbarism. The were mostly small holders/ tenants who had come to farm and create a better life for their families. The land they farmed had been seized due to the 'treason' of the previous holders - remember, all land under the Anglo system was held of the crown and ALL of the 'rebels' had at some point submitted to that same crown. Indeed, O'Neill owed all he had to Elizabeth who supported against Turlough Luimneach Ua Neill - The Uí Neill of Tir Eoghan according to the Gaelic system. To their way of thinking, they were loyal subjects of his majesty spreading civilisation in harsh conditions until the savage native rose up and slaughtered them - men, women and children. We hear the same tales from the Americas, Africa, Australia etc.

What happened in Ulster fit into a wider Irish/ Global context of conquest, plantations, colonisation, destruction of native cultures, social engineering, attempts at genocide, growing Sectarianism, genesis of Race Theories and the Counter-Reformation.

It is rare to have documents relating to those 'little' people who sought new lives in colonies - which is what the Ulster plantation was. As forerunner to the tactics later used in North America - tactics which had been, in turn, developed during the subjugation of the Scottish Highland lords - the Ulster Plantation had 'learned' from the 'mistakes' of King's/Queen's counties under Mary I, Munster under Elizabeth and of Lewis by James VI /I and was an exercise in social engineering radical at the time. The lessons learned there were transplanted to North America just decades later and then on to Australia. Ironically - it is an Irishman (Sheridan) who is often credited with the expression - 'The only good injun is a dead injun' - advocating the genocide of the 'barbarous' Native Americans so their land could be 'planted' by 'civilised' British settlers and the very concept of Irish republicanism was developed by the descendants of the Ulster planters.

Ray Gillespie published an interesting article in History Ireland on the Ulster Plantation as social engineering: (http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume15/issue4/features/?id=351) where he outlines the demographic make-up of the planters:



So the Ulster Plantation was an attempt to create a 'British' identity after the 3 crowns were united under James I. Some of the methods employed included the imposition of urbanisation on a rural/pastoral community, the creation of a hierarchical society based on primogeniture and the provision of free education for the native people to 'civilise' them (i.e - make them 'British').

Interesting to note that 208 of these 'planters' holding 14% of the land were native Gaelic Irish - also that the 57 precincts allocated to former officials/soldiers were allowed to employ 'native' tenants.

Well I'm glad we are on the same page.

And talking about pages - just to say - I have all the original documents on the Plantation so I know about the 'deserving Irish' being granted some of the land and the directions for specific - and different - housing types for 'Irish' and planters etc.

CDfm

indioblack wrote: »

This thread quickly evolved into a discussion on Anglo-Irish history.
I think that, with the best will in the world, subjectiveness is bound to enter the debate.

I brought up the Battle of Aughrim as some time along the way it has been replaced by the Boyne as the significant Battle in popular history.

So what heritage gets celebrated and real history should be about sorting out what is real against folklore.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

So what heritage gets celebrated and real history should be about sorting out what is real against folklore.

Or whose heritage we are celebrating - Carrigaline in Cork still makes much of its connection with Francis Drake:
http://www.tourismresources.ie/cht/drake/

Drake's Pool is a wonderfully restored 300 year old cottage overlooking the river running into Carrigaline. This cove off Cork Harbour, on the south-west coast of Ireland, is a hidden area that has enjoyed a rich history. Sir Francis Drake and five of his fleet ships took refuge in 1587 when they were pursued by the powerful Spanish fleet.

Nhead

Some history becomes a cause celebre and and some leaves the popular imagination (sometimes due to politics). After the Crimean War there was a massive celebration for Irish Vets in Dublin, David Murphy has a book entitled Ireland and the Crimean War which, is very detailed on the period, but now most people wouldn't have a bulls notion about the war. The Irish influence in the war was substantial, I think Cdfm has a few posts on the Irish nun that saved more life's than the lady of the lamp during the conflict.

A group that I have looked at are the women graduates of the RUi, many of the first graduates were Protestant and Unionist in outlook so maybe it was believed by some that they don't/didn't fit into the nationalist historiography and we, as a nation, forget they belong to the history of the island. The women themselves worked with groups of nationalists to further women in education highlighting that unionist and nationalist wasn't just a us vs them dichotomy.

CDfm

+1 on the Crimea etc. and Irish in the forces and the Empire.

And how many Willie O'Shea's were there, catholic landowners, officers & part of the establishment ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056115564

Nhead wrote: »

I think Cdfm has a few posts on the Irish nun that saved more life's than the lady of the lamp during the conflict.

Mother Francis Bridgeman from Kinsale , taught Florrie all she knew , only for her to plagiarize her notes and claim them as her own.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72249069&postcount=13

A group that I have looked at are the women graduates of the RUi, many of the first graduates were Protestant and Unionist in outlook.......... further women in education highlighting that unionist and nationalist wasn't just a us vs them dichotomy

I tried to kick off some threads as the bits and I know these did not match up with the popular history.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056265715

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056297784

CDfm

getzls wrote: »

HellsAngel wrote: »

The 1912 Ulster Covenant is alleged to have been signed by half a million individual Ulster unionists. However I have heard that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of their family, friends, neighbors, Mickey Mouse


Ah, there was no Mickey Mouse in 1912. Though i know what u mean. Bit like dead people voting for the shinners in west belfast for a lot of years.:)

CDfm wrote: »

Do you mean the Ulster Covenant was padded out with false entries ?

If so do you have any evidence ?

HellsAngel wrote: »

Really :eek:, was it widespread or was the very odd individual accused of it down the decades ?? Link please .

EDIT- JONNIEBGOOD1: Part of post deleted. it is enough to ask for source without an added insult.

owenc wrote: »

Post deleted

EDIT- JONNIEBGOOD1- Infraction for bringing religion into the discussion unnessesarily.

Recently we have had this .

The Ulster Covenant Thread was a great thread and adventurous thread..

We got to look at the birth of modern unionism and as I enjoyed it mostly until the mudslinging started.

Same with Mountbattens Death Thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056368179

What I am asking here is how do we discuss controvercial topics, and God knows, Irish history is ****ing traumatic , and we all know that.

History is the past and for a little country we have a lot of it and we all have our own heritage.

When I started this thread , this was at the back of my mind., and I started an Ulster Famine later on.

So how can we come up with some practical conventions and ettiquette within our forum that allows us to be edgy historically and put out the facts and not get embroilled in the politics.

Part of what comes up as history here are political myths and stances and can even be pub talk or minority views and is not history at all.

So how can we do this ?

Now other fora dont do it sucessfully all the time either. The Religion one is split between atheism and others and they do tear strips off you if you slip of the orthodoxy - but they manage to do it. (now I cant see us getting a Unionist or Republican subforum any day soon

We in history don't manage that and to cover real topics should be looking at this.

But where to start ?

Nhead

CDfm wrote: »

getzls wrote: »

Recently we have had this .

The Ulster Covenant Thread was a great thread and adventurous thread..

We got to look at the birth of modern unionism and as I enjoyed it mostly until the mudslinging started.

Same with Mountbattens Death Thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056368179

What I am asking here is how do we discuss controvercial topics, and God knows, Irish history is ****ing traumatic , and we all know that.

History is the past and for a little country we have a lot of it and we all have our own heritage.

When I started this thread , this was at the back of my mind., and I started an Ulster Famine later on.

So how can we come up with some practical conventions and ettiquette within our forum that allows us to be edgy historically and put out the facts and not get embroilled in the politics.

Part of what comes up as history here are political myths and stances and can even be pub talk or minority views and is not history at all.

So how can we do this ?

Now other fora dont do it sucessfully all the time either. The Religion one is split between atheism and others and they do tear strips off you if you slip of the orthodoxy - but they manage to do it. (now I cant see us getting a Unionist or Republican subforum any day soon

We in history don't manage that and to cover real topics should be looking at this.

But where to start ?

I didn't cover myself in glory in that thread myself and shouldn't have entered into it. The difficulty, as I see it, is that it can be hard to determine tone and intent when reading someones posts which, can lead to misunderstanding and we can all assume things about posters personality, politics, religion etc

CDfm

Nhead wrote: »

I didn't cover myself in glory in that thread myself and shouldn't have entered into it. The difficulty, as I see it, is that it can be hard to determine tone and intent when reading someones posts which, can lead to misunderstanding and we can all assume things about posters personality, politics, religion etc

It is history and what is more important saying what we believe and our beliefs or saying what the people believed at the time.

Thats the history.Its the back then not the now that counts.

We do history so should discuss it and welcome others to too.

Nhead

CDfm wrote: »

It is history and what is more important saying what we believe and our beliefs or saying what the people believed at the time.

Thats the history.Its the back then not the now that counts.

Of course. But at times our own personalities/mood get the better of us, as it did with me on that occasion for that I can only apologise. As I said sometimes we jump to conclusions and forget there is a person behind the screen.

On the history side of things: certain topics are always going to emotive, on an Irish history forum republicanism and unionism are always going to be at loggerheads as people feel such a personal attachment to both and it can define them. Personally, I can understand where both traditions are coming from, both have done good and bad and both are part of the history of the island,indeed the history of the islands. At the end, no matter what way we view it, both traditions are linked historiographically.

CDfm

I grew up outside a small southern Irish town.

Protestant neighbours etc

NI was so far away we had no connection with it and the politics of its parties was very extreme too.

I faced emigration etc and really wondered why the north on both sides was so extreme.

So history wise I am detached from NI.

slowburner

A bit off topic but two genuine questions for the buffs.
Over in the 'Romans in Wicklow' thread, we have been discussing people and events which have been recorded mostly in secondary sources. Does the fact that the sources are secondary make this subject pre-history, or is it history?
Why are record like the Annals of the four Masters, the Leabhar Gabála etc. treated with such skepticism?

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

A bit off topic but two genuine questions for the buffs.
Over in the 'Romans in Wicklow' thread, we have been discussing people and events which have been recorded mostly in secondary sources. Does the fact that the sources are secondary make this subject pre-history, or is it history?
Why are record like the Annals of the four Masters, the Leabhar Gabála etc. treated with such skepticism?

ah Sources- they are tricky beasts.

To try and simplify it a bit(!)

- a primary source is both contemporary with the events it refers to AND relevant to what appears to have happened. Think of them as 'eye witness' statements and corroborating evidence of those statements.

Take the downfall and execution of Mary I of Scotland - one of her loudest critics was John Knox so we would follow that thread to see what he had to say and try and work out why he said it. The all important Who/What/When/Where/Why I have referred to before.

One of the first sources we'd look at is Knox's polemic The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women(1558)
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm. BUT that just tells us what he was ranting on about - not explain his motivation (apart from not believing women could rule!). So we would need to investigate Knox a bit more. This brings us to Geneva and Calvin. Lets have a look at what Calvin had to say so - it may shed light on Knox. Hmmm...still not quite satisfied with the background check on Knox - lets look at Luther and the break with Rome to see if that provides illumination as to what the hell was going on...


Mary Stuart was raised in Catholic France with French ideas of the role of the monarch (so we'd have to look at those too!) and was a essentially a stranger to the Scottish lords and Scottish culture (need to find out about that too). Religion became one of the dividing lines within Scotland. So, Luther's (and Calvin's) writings have now become primary sources when investigating the execution of Mary Scots as they provide contextual detail.


We can fairly safely assume when Luther wrote his 95 Thesis Scotland was the furthest thing from his mind BUT what he wrote sparked the formation of a new Christian religion - this opened the way for others to do likewise - cue Calvin. Knox studied in Geneva and developed a form of Calvinism known as Presbyterianism which he brought back to Scotland - So Calvin, Luther and Rome are now relevant to the investigation.


As in any investigation, there are red herrings, tangents, dead ends as well as the possibility that someone 'saw' something but didn't realise the significance of it - Gotta find THAT document! (This explains the mumbling, distracted air of many historians - the eternal search for THAT document..also may explain why I can never remember where I parked my car).


On an amusing note Knox's anti-female rulers polemic came to bite him in the ass - he was looking for a pension from Elizabeth I - she was a widely read, well educated, highly intelligent woman. Yup - she had him squirming like a spit on a griddle! ('Oooch Nooo, yer Majesty - I didna mean yoo. I meant wimmun named Mary who were nasty servants of the Anti-Christ in RRRRome de yen ken.' 'What's that you say oh Bountiful and Glorrrrious queen? - yer big sister was named Mary and a .... um..... Aye. Well....um....'. )



Secondary sources would be more akin to 'hearsay' - people commenting on things they did not witness themselves but 'heard' about. Sometimes there may be primary sources which corroborate the secondary, sometimes not.

This brings us to the Annals of the Four Masters (available here http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html) and the Lebor Gabála Érenn (Macailister's trans here: http://www.archive.org/details/leborgablare03macauoft)

The Four Masters is both a Secondary source and a Primary source - it is a primary source for the events which occurred during the life of the authors which they would have had personal knowledge - so the end of Tudor period, beginning of the Stuart, Counter-Reformation, Battle of Kinsale etc etc. So lets say 1560s onward.

BUT The Masters is essentially a 17th century compilation of other older Annals (most of which no longer exist) making it also secondary source. It also had an 'editorial' policy which influenced what went in, what was left out and phraseology. But then so did all the other Annals - Loch Cé was written by the Mac Diarmuid's of Roscommon -it sings the praises of the Mac Diarmuids and their allies and slams their enemies.
Indeed, I should point out that ALL sources have some form of editorial policy at play - not just the Annals!


In some instances entries are verified by other extant Annals such as Loch Cé (here also: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/publishd.html).

In other instances there is not another source to provide verification, or other Annals tell a completely different story so the Masters are contradicted , or the entry cannot possible be correct (for example The Masters states Risteard in Iarann á Búrc was Mac Uilliam Íochtair in the 1550s - it was in fact his father, Iron Dick did not become Mac Uilliam until 1580).

Usually, however, the Masters provides additional information which when used in conjunction with other Gaelic sources AND the State Papers, private letters of Tudor/Stuart administrators etc helps give a more balanced and nuanced amount of evidence. A great deal of work is now being done on The Masters by Nollaig O Muraile in NUIG and Bernie Cunningham of the RIA. Sadly, the wonderful Annals of Loch Cé are still neglected while the Annals of Clonmacnoise are all but forgotten.

The Lebor Gabála is the origin myth of the Gaelic people (NOT Celtic as is so often claimed). Like the Masters it is a compilation - this time from the 11th century. So it pre-dates the Norman invasion. It tends to be discounted as unsupported 'myth' - however it is a very valuable primary source for the immediate pre-invasion period as it tells us who the 'Irish' believed they were. This document displays an enormous sense of pride and is the result of a mini Gaelic renaissance which was happening at the time as different claimants to the High Kingship engaged in not just military tactics but a very serious game of cultural one upmanship - each wished to prove that their lineage was the most noble and ancient; their patronage of artists, poets, historians the most enlightened; their hospitality the most bountiful; their ruthlessness the most absolute; their military might the most powerful; their alliances the most steadfast and their education the most complete. They were, in short, attempting to portray themselves as what would later be called Renaissance Princes (think Henry VIII and François I in the Early Modern Period) but their cultural touchstone was not the ancient Classical world - but the Ancient Gaelic one. The Lebor Gabála was part of this whole process and any historian of the Irish Mediaeval period ignores it at their peril (tho many do just that...).

So once again we have a document that is both a primary source and a secondary one - but unlike The Masters, Lebor Gabála is usually consigned to mythology. Yet, recent projects in DNA mapping have confirmed at least some of the information contained in LG - traditionally the Irish are classified as Celtic people following an invasion by Celts (defined as a nomadic, tribal people who populated large sections of Central Europe in the pre-Roman era) from either Gaul or Britain c 2500 BCE - Archaeologists have long argued against this hypothesis as it is just not supported by the evidence and insist instead that the artefacts point towards a notable influence on Gaelic Irish artefacts by an outside (probably Celtic) source. The alternate hypothesis now being put forward says that people arrived on the Island of Ireland c6 -4,000 BCE - around that latter date agriculture began so at they 'shipped' domestic animals over as none were available here. This demonstrates the existence of not inconsiderable sailing skills AND contact with either/and Britain and the Continent. We also know that copper from Kerry was highly valued and it has been found across Europe. So,while on bullock buying/copper exporting shipping duty, these people would see technological innovations in tools etc and bring that info back and try and work out how they did that... This process is evident in the axeheads etc of the period. For the invasion hypothesis to be correct - i.e the Island of Ireland was invaded by a technologically superior Celtic peoples who took over -the artefacts should show no evidence of 'trying to work it out' but rather a very abrupt jump from inferior to superior technology.

So the LG states that the Gaelic people came to Ireland from what is now Spain - it is VERY clear on that - not Britain or Gaul. DNA mapping has confirmed this - anyone manage to stay awake as a certain celebratory gardener waffled through RTE's Blood of the Irish? - that was the point of the programme. The Irish share far more DNA markers with the Basques then with Central Europeans -who would have the 'Celtic' markers. The up shot of that long waffle (Sorry - I get carried away!! ) is that information in the Lebor Gabála long dismissed as fantasy has now been verified by modern scientific techniques.

As for why these sources are often ignored -the Great Ken Nicholls has often maintained this is due to an inverted racism within Irish historiography which perceives Anglo sources as more reliable and Gaelic ones containing nothing of worth. Over the course of the last few years of examining in detail the types of sources used in Irish historiography I have come to fully support Nicholl's position.

Nhead

An excellent post. And if I may ask, what sources do you recommend that we should look at.

Bannasidhe

Nhead wrote: »

An excellent post. And if I may ask, what sources do you recommend that we should look at.

Glad you like it. Sources on which exactly? I had a bit of a gallop through the ages there and had to dredge up info acquired over a decade ago...

Nhead

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Glad you like it. Sources on which exactly? I had a bit of a gallop through the ages there and had to dredge up info acquired over a decade ago...

Sorry for not being clear, I meant Gaelic sources

Bannasidhe

Nhead wrote: »

Sorry for not being clear, I meant Gaelic sources

What I would really recommend is get your hand on John O Donovan's 19th century translations of both the Four Masters and Loch Cé - the man was a genius. The published books contain the original Irish on one side and the translation on the page opposite plus copious and meticulous footnotes. Use those as your starting point and then you can select which secondary sources best serve to give the contextual detail.

Ken Nicholls, Bernie Cunningham, Nollaig O Muraile would be good places to start. For good, nitty gritty recent work on Gaelic Ireland in the Early Mod period I would recommend the various collections of essays edited by Dave Edwards.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On an amusing note Knox's anti-female rulers polemic came to bite him in the ass - he was looking for a pension from Elizabeth I - she was a widely read, well educated, highly intelligent woman. Yup - she had him squirming like a spit on a griddle! ('Oooch Nooo, yer Majesty - I didna mean yoo. I meant wimmun named Mary who were nasty servants of the Anti-Christ in RRRRome de yen ken.' 'What's that you say oh Bountiful and Glorrrrious queen? - yer big sister was named Mary and a .... um..... Aye. Well....um....'. )
.

MarchDub

I would suggest that posts # 139 and #143 by Bannasidhe are really excellent recommendations for anyone exploring the subject of history - and ought to be in the 'recommended reading' sticky thread.

Would the mod consider this?

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I would suggest that posts # 139 and #143 by Bannasidhe are really excellent recommendations for anyone exploring the subject of history - and ought to be in the 'recommended reading' sticky thread.

+1

And from you MD - thats a 5 star review .

slowburner

+1+1
I think that is one of the finest posts I have ever seen on this forum.

And I am utterly delighted that someone had the sphericals to criticise that programme with the gardener. It was trite sensationalist nonsense. And it struck anyone who commented on it, with a dread of the wails of political correctness.

slowburner

And I hope I didn't offend by calling you 'buffs'

Bannasidhe

Shucks...aw guys...:o

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I would suggest that posts # 139 and #143 by Bannasidhe are really excellent recommendations for anyone exploring the subject of history - and ought to be in the 'recommended reading' sticky thread.

Would the mod consider this?

CDfm wrote: »

+1

And from you MD - thats a 5 star review .

slowburner wrote: »

+1+1
I think that is one of the finest posts I have ever seen on this forum.

And I am utterly delighted that someone had the sphericals to criticise that programme with the gardener. It was trite sensationalist nonsense. And it struck anyone who commented on it, with a dread of the wails of political correctness.

No problem folks. A sticky thread for information on sources such as the mentioned post would be a good idea and helpful for reluctant or first time posters.

While we are on the subject would any of the regulars have an objection to the merging of some of the stickied threads (i.e. photos and videos, or e-resources and reading). I am a nerd and feel some house keeping of this sort would tidy up the main page. The mentioned threads are not used very often but they are worth keeping at the top of the page.

All views including dissenting ones are welcome here or by PM if preferred.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No problem folks. A sticky thread for information on sources such as the mentioned post would be a good idea and helpful for reluctant or first time posters.

While we are on the subject would any of the regulars have an objection to the merging of some of the stickied threads (i.e. photos and videos, or e-resources and reading). I am a nerd and feel some house keeping of this sort would tidy up the main page. The mentioned threads are not used very often but they are worth keeping at the top of the page.

All views including dissenting ones are welcome here or by PM if preferred.

Sounds good to me.