Was colonising Ireland worth it?

Kold

Ok I wasn't too interested in Irish history back in the day but I took in the basics. This question popped up to me yesterday, wondering could someone give a couple of quick answers;

What did England gain in the end by colonising Ireland?

Overall, was it at all worth it?

nuac

1. England gained land and resources.

2. Prevented a Spanish or a French foothold in Ireland

Manach

It provided them with a testing ground on how not to successfully colonise a land.

mike65

nuac wrote: »

1. England gained land and resources.

2. Prevented a Spanish or a French foothold in Ireland

is the real answer I think,

Provided some cheap labour close to home for the military and trees.

robp

Kold wrote: »

What did England gain in the end by colonising Ireland?

Perhaps for British trade (for the earlier Norman part of the colonisation). The expansion into Ireland provided rich new markets for British producers to export to. For example Medieval Waterford had very strong trade to Bristol. In more traditional rural and Gaelic Ireland their would be less of these British imports.

riffmongous

Land and titles which could be given to the favourites.

In the 1800s Ireland was definitely a source of manpower for the army.

Prestige perhaps for the first few hundred years? Although I wouldn't actually consider Ireland to have been colonised at the point, not up until the 1700s perhaps but I am not sure how the OP defines colonised.

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

Land and titles which could be given to the favourites.

In the 1800s Ireland was definitely a source of manpower for the army.

Prestige perhaps for the first few hundred years? Although I wouldn't actually consider Ireland to have been colonised at the point, not up until the 1700s perhaps but I am not sure how the OP defines colonised.

I think up until the Battle of Fontenoy (1745) the continental powers were allowed actively recruit in Ireland because the British army essentially had a prohibition on the recruitment of Catholics and the administration didn't want a lot of men of military age sitting around with nothing to do.

At Fontenoy the French Irish Brigade dished out some rough handling to the Hanoverians and the British, and in the aftermath of the battle it was decided to prohibit further active recruiting in Ireland - although potential recruits could still make their way to the continent.

I think it was another 20/30 years before the British lifted the prohibition (or just ignored it) on Catholics and from about 1790 to 1855 was the 'high point' of Irish recruitment into the British army.

Richard Holmes in 'Soldier' suggests that in the the period of the Napoleonic Wars up to the Crimean War the British Army was predominantly officered by Irish and Scots with Welsh and English soldiers.

That began to change when emigration kicked into high gear.

pedroeibar1

Jawgap wrote: »

I think up until the Battle of Fontenoy (1745) the continental powers were allowed actively recruit in Ireland because the British army essentially had a prohibition on the recruitment of Catholics and the administration didn't want a lot of men of military age sitting around with nothing to do.

At Fontenoy the French Irish Brigade dished out some rough handling to the Hanoverians and the British, and in the aftermath of the battle it was decided to prohibit further active recruiting in Ireland - although potential recruits could still make their way to the continent.

I think it was another 20/30 years before the British lifted the prohibition (or just ignored it) on Catholics and from about 1790 to 1855 was the 'high point' of Irish recruitment into the British army.

Richard Holmes in 'Soldier' suggests that in the the period of the Napoleonic Wars up to the Crimean War the British Army was predominantly officered by Irish and Scots with Welsh and English soldiers.

That began to change when emigration kicked into high gear.

During the 1700's there are several records of troops going to the Continent from Ireland - mainly during the Wars of the Austrian Succession. (mentioned in King's History of Kerry). In the early 1700's the smuggling trade from Kerry brought both students and soldiers to France - Murty Og O'Suilleabhain being a noted character.

At Fontenoy the Irish Brigade used the battle-cry, ‘Cuimhnigidh ar Luimneach agus ar feall na Sasanaigh!’ (‘Remember Limerick and English perfidy’), a reference to England’s behaviour following the surrender at Limerick. Although their attack forced the British to retreat and they captured 15 cannon and a colour from the Coldstream Guards, the losses were very high - about 500 casualties.

The blockades of the French ports during the Napoleonic Wars had a big impact on the smuggling trade so it presumably had a knock-on effect on troop carrying.

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

Richard Holmes in 'Soldier' suggests that in the the period of the Napoleonic Wars up to the Crimean War the British Army was predominantly officered by Irish and Scots with Welsh and English soldiers.

That began to change when emigration kicked into high gear.

Is that the right way around?

http://belfastmediagroup.com/fascinating-insight-into-the-irish-who-joined-british-army/

Between 1830-1878 on average the Irish made up 28 per cent of the army

There are records of Irish soldiers fighting in the armies of Imperial regiments during the 30 Years War, the Spanish also maintained a brigade.

Gambas

Kold wrote: »

Ok I wasn't too interested in Irish history back in the day but I took in the basics. This question popped up to me yesterday, wondering could someone give a couple of quick answers;

What did England gain in the end by colonising Ireland?

Overall, was it at all worth it?

The main advantage was that they we wouldn't pose a threat to them. This allowed them to focus their attention on continental powers and not have to worry about a threat from the west. From the 18th century onward that was never going to be an issue anyway as we didn't have the resources required for industrialisation, which could have empowered us and supported a population explosion, but they never knew that at the time.

Jawgap

riffmongous wrote: »

Is that the right way around?

http://belfastmediagroup.com/fascinating-insight-into-the-irish-who-joined-british-army/



There are records of Irish soldiers fighting in the armies of Imperial regiments during the 30 Years War, the Spanish also maintained a brigade.

I'll dig out the book later and check the quote, but I think that's essentially how he described it. The mid-1850s were identified by him as a watershed period, I think that's why his comparison ended there. It looks like the period cited in the link spans that time of fairly intense change.

I think, iirc, the era after the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny saw significant changes and increased professionalisation of the British Army, including the abolition of purchased commissions

Jawgap

Coincidentally, this article just appeared on the BBC History Magazine website....

Tudors in America: how England's New World colonies came into being

The bit relevant to this thread is......

Such easy pickings deflected ambitious entrepreneurs from risking their investment and the lives of others in far less certain returns from the American coastline. What’s more, for those who fancied establishing a plantation, land was available much nearer home through the confiscation and redistribution of Irish estates. The proponents of American settlement therefore had rival, seemingly less risky, attractions with which to contend.

the suggestion seems to be that the availability of land in Ireland influenced decisions to invest or not in New England.

owenc

Lets be honest... No.

Jawgap

owenc wrote: »

Lets be honest... No.

Nothing like a carefully reasoned post to persuade one to change an opinion......

gozunda

Famous last words....

Arthur Chicester, Appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland, writing of Ireland in 1607...

'If his majesty will assume the countries into his possession, divide the lands...bestow the rest upon servitors and men of worth, and withal bring in colonies of civil people of England and Scotland...the country will ever after be happily settled."

Wearsider

This is going to sound questionable:

I don't think they really saw it as colonisation, rather the spreading of civilised culture throughout it's own lands, sounds arrogant by 2014 standards but to them I was more like electricity or running water - a requirement that all should have.

macker33

Kold wrote: »

What did England gain in the end by colonising Ireland?

Overall, was it at all worth it?

Gunpowder, lots and lots of it, they would have lost at waterloo without it.

Plus they were able to use the irish as cannon fodder and spare their own.

Reekwind

It's worth briefly noting that what was unprofitable for the state often benefited elements of it or wider society. For example, the running of the British Empire at its peak was undoubtedly an overall burden on the British state (too heavy a burden post-WWI) but a great many private individuals, companies and groups made a great deal of money out of the enterprise.

Similarly, the question isn't whether the Crown profited from Ireland but whether those notables who supported it did. As the division of the island into great estates suggests, there was wealth to be made for individuals in Ireland.

Wearsider wrote: »

I don't think they really saw it as colonisation, rather the spreading of civilised culture throughout it's own lands, sounds arrogant by 2014 standards but to them I was more like electricity or running water - a requirement that all should have.

Where's the contradiction between that and colonisation? The 'civilising mission', in various guises, has always been a key element in justifying imperialism: it provides a sense of supposed superiority over the soon-to-be-conquered. Even the original Norman invasion was positioned in this light: to quote the relevant Papal bull, the Normans were "to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people".

Naturally this ignored the fact that the Irish had been Christian for far longer than the Normans but then such realities have never stopped invaders from claiming that 'civilisation', or any variant thereof, was on their side.

tac foley

Indeed, Ireland was the shining light of Christianity that was taken to mainland Britain by Irish and Irish-based missionaries. Without them and the work they did converting the pagan post-Roman British and later incomers, the likely history of these islands would have been mightily different.

tac

Jawgap

The missionaries to Britain thing was well covered in Border Country last night. Second part is on next week.

Peter Heather describes the Norman 'invasion' (both here and in England) as less an invasion and more an elite transfer.

Although, the Tudor Re-Conquest and Cromwell were more invasion-like!

tac foley

I would have liked to have seen that. What little I know of the period is gleaned from reading of the Peter Tremayne books.

tac

Nekarsulm

Was it worth it, for us or for them?
We gained an awful lot of classical and neo classical building stock, which would probably never have been built otherwise. Walk down the main street of your local town, and pick out the libraries, Court-house , Market squares and Market houses etc. be a very different street scape without the colonisers.

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

I would have liked to have seen that. What little I know of the period is gleaned from reading of the Peter Tremayne books.

tac

Definitely worth it, if you can get it online.

The other one worth looking at (the final episode is on tonight) is The Plantagenets.

jane82

All the corned beef they could export. Even during the famine it was coming through the ports like guiness comes through your large intestine on a sunday morning.
It stopped the enemies having somewhere to dock and then invade from both sides.
Bit of a headache at times but in fairness to them they did alright out of it.

Jawgap

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Was it worth it, for us or for them?
We gained an awful lot of classical and neo classical building stock, which would probably never have been built otherwise. Walk down the main street of your local town, and pick out the libraries, Court-house , Market squares and Market houses etc. be a very different street scape without the colonisers.

Don't forget the roads......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLLMfWmiC0E

riffmongous

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Was it worth it, for us or for them?
We gained an awful lot of classical and neo classical building stock, which would probably never have been built otherwise. Walk down the main street of your local town, and pick out the libraries, Court-house , Market squares and Market houses etc. be a very different street scape without the colonisers.

I'm not really sure if you can say that, without getting into some alternate history thinking.

And I wouldn't agree with the idea either anyway, the little bit of architecture from those times you get in Ireland compares very unfavourably with settler/coloniser towns within the greater German sphere in central and eastern Europe. But this could just be a matter of taste

Manach

On the infrastructure argument - it could be countered that a non-Colonised Ireland would have developed the existing trading links to Europe and would have acted as a spur to a more sea-based economy, similar to the Hansetic League. For example Galway had strong ties to Spain and without the restrictive non-compete laws passed by London, could have grew to continental levels of trade.

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

Peter Heather describes the Norman 'invasion' (both here and in England) as less an invasion and more an elite transfer

Not sure I'd agree with that. The Norman invasion* did lead to substantial immigration and the importation of new laws (both primarily in the east and south-east) and ultimately the political shackling of Ireland to England as a frontier/colonial territory. Not sure I'd describe it as just a transfer of elites.

Robert Bartlett's The Making of Europe does a good job of fitting Ireland into the wider context of Christendom's expansion during the Middle Ages.

*Albeit as an 'invasion' it was more akin to Italy than England, with the likes of de Courcy carving out quasi-independent fiefdoms for themselves

Nekarsulm wrote:

We gained an awful lot of classical and neo classical building stock, which would probably never have been built otherwise. Walk down the main street of your local town, and pick out the libraries, Court-house , Market squares and Market houses etc. be a very different street scape without the colonisers.

To be honest I find this to be a strange argument. The criteria for English success in Ireland was the importation of English architecture? Really?

And who's to say that Ireland couldn't have developed her own style or imported it without the force of arms? Arguably Ireland would be better provisioned with classical buildings (itself a relatively trivial indicator as to prosperity) if more wealth had remained in the country, rather than being siphoned off abroad

Wearsider

tac foley wrote: »

Indeed, Ireland was the shining light of Christianity that was taken to mainland Britain by Irish and Irish-based missionaries. Without them and the work they did converting the pagan post-Roman British and later incomers, the likely history of these islands would have been mightily different.

tac

Bastards.

Nekarsulm

Reekwind wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree with that. The Norman invasion* did lead to substantial immigration and the importation of new laws (both primarily in the east and south-east) and ultimately the political shackling of Ireland to England as a frontier/colonial territory. Not sure I'd describe it as just a transfer of elites.

Robert Bartlett's The Making of Europe does a good job of fitting Ireland into the wider context of Christendom's expansion during the Middle Ages.

*Albeit as an 'invasion' it was more akin to Italy than England, with the likes of de Courcy carving out quasi-independent fiefdoms for themselves

To be honest I find this to be a strange argument. The criteria for English success in Ireland was the importation of English architecture? Really?
j
And who's to say that Ireland couldn't have developed her own style or imported it without the force of arms? Arguably Ireland would be better provisioned with classical buildings (itself a relatively trivial indicator as to prosperity) if more wealth had remained in the country, rather than being siphoned off abroad

Of course we could have developed a unique style of our own, its a fascinating idea to try and imagine how it would have looked. Not sure a Hansiatic style would have transferred here? But would the northern German states have taken the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants over the years?

pedroeibar1

Reekwind wrote: »

And who's to say that Ireland couldn't have developed her own style or imported it without the force of arms? Arguably Ireland would be better provisioned with classical buildings (itself a relatively trivial indicator as to prosperity) if more wealth had remained in the country, rather than being siphoned off abroad

I do not fully agree with the above but share some of the views. I disagree with your 'trivial indicator' comment. An educated and informed population is a key indicator of prosperity and such people create, admire and respect the built environment and its heritage. That was and is sadly lacking in much of Ireland.

Architecture/buildings developed with migration bringing the flow of ideas. That needed wealth and political stability. (I’m not going to debate which comes first.) Most if not all of the ‘better’ buildings in Britain resulted from the influence of colonisation and travel – think Romans, Normans, Renaissance, queen brides from Spain/France), Palladio, the Grand Tour, etc., That influence permeated the upper levels of society and then filtered down, landlords built model villages, better housing for staff, etc. Others in the population saw what was being done and ‘aped’ it. 'Manners' developed and filtered down by means of Big House staff taking their experience home with them. In Ireland generally that did not happen (with a few notable exceptions), as Ireland was seen as a place from which to take money rather than invest it. Wars and rebellions had a huge influence, fortified manor houses were long gone out of in England when they were still frequent in Ireland – not much point in having ‘French doors’ onto one’s lawn when a rapparee/pikeman /Whiteboy could be expected at any time. Shutters, semi-basements, etc., were a design norm here for centuries. I’m sure there is a thesis somewhere on the role of 'Rebellion, Architecture and the Big House in Ireland.'

As for an Irish ‘style’ if wealth had remained in the country, the ‘native’ Irish had wealth for the last 50 years and considerable wealth during the Celtic Tiger. Just look at the total crap that was erected – Hawkins House, ESB offices in Fitzwilliam Sq, Lr. Mount St in Dublin, City Quay, and drive any road in rural Ireland and you will see a choice of enough McMansions, bungalow bliss, ghost estates, faux Georgian porticos to make you want to puke. It is very hard to list more than a few decent buildings that can be attributed to Irish architects in recent decades (not entirely their fault, they need patrons/commissions.)

robp

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As for an Irish ‘style’ if wealth had remained in the country, the ‘native’ Irish had wealth for the last 50 years and considerable wealth during the Celtic Tiger. Just look at the total crap that was erected – Hawkins House, ESB offices in Fitzwilliam Sq, Lr. Mount St in Dublin, City Quay, and drive any road in rural Ireland and you will see a choice of enough McMansions, bungalow bliss, ghost estates, faux Georgian porticos to make you want to puke. It is very hard to list more than a few decent buildings that can be attributed to Irish architects in recent decades (not entirely their fault, they need patrons/commissions.)

This point does not hold. Ugly architecture in the 21st cen is a global phenomenon. You can't compare architecture of the last 40 years to earlier time periods. Its very hard to hard to estimate how architecture would have developed as the foreign presence began here 900 years ago. Ireland is too close to Britain to ignore its artistic influence but hypothetically it could have been quite different.

pedroeibar1

robp wrote: »

This point does not hold. Ugly architecture in the 21st cen is a global phenomenon. You can't compare architecture of the last 40 years to earlier time periods. Its very hard to hard to estimate how architecture would have developed as the foreign presence began here 900 years ago. Ireland is too close to Britain to ignore artistic influence but it hypothetically could have been quiet different.

If you believe that my point does not hold you’ve done nothing to refute it.

‘Ugly’, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Prince Charles used strong words (".....monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”) on the proposed extension for the National Gallery, (proposals by Rogers and by Ahrends, Burton and Koralek.) Architects will dismiss what he would want - e.g. something like the Sainsbury wing - as ‘pastiche’ and prefer something totally contrasting. Either can be beautiful – think of the works of Gehry, for example. It is hard to put Cleary’s Alto Vetro building in that category, even though it won several awards here.

There are accepted norms of ‘ugly’ and I still maintain that much of Ireland’s recent architecture is considerably worse than elsewhere else in the world. Taking the UK as an example, if you accept the works for e.g. Quinlan Terry as ‘modern’ and even include them with those of Rogers and other ‘modernists’, you have buildings that are interesting and beautiful in their own way. Look at their recent building awards. Now look at the Irish prizewinners from last year. I contend that aesthetically very few of the Irish buildings actually jump off the page as beautiful or exciting.

In this country over the last few decades we have produced (and given planning permission to) thousands of badly built/designed boxes that purport to be living spaces (think Zoe Developments’ apartments on the Quays); we have ugly ‘villages’ of empty holiday homes huddled together on flood plains or on the fringes of villages with no services; we have badly designed, pretentious dross in every rural area. If you do not accept my point, log onto myhome or daft, search Cavan or Leitrim (or any rural county) using 450k as a minimum price and you will see the s#ite that was built by Irish people with no aesthetic sense. You will not find that type of development or housing stock in such quantity elsewhere in Europe. It is just as easy to build a nice house as an ugly pretentious pile, the money is the same. Most of the 'quality' built heritage we have is inherited, not home produced - and please don't quote Scott & Busarus, or Tallon's few buildings, or Stephenson. How many firms like Heneghan Peng are out there? And it should be obvious why do the good ones have to do their work abroad.

Nekarsulm

Regarding Cavan & Leitrim, I hope you meant to type 45 thousand euro, not 450 thousand!
You could buy half a village down here for that type of coin...............!

SpaceTime

I think we underestimate how much soft power we have as a result of independence though.

I've found that when you say you're Irish in a lot of former British colonies (the ones that didn't like being colonies) or in countries that don't like the English that much (France being the main one) … you're suddenly much more popular

I actually think Ireland could make more of the old colonial connection because we're kinda Britain's bad-ass neighbour that can provide a link to Western Europe and the EU without the historical imperial master baggage the UK has.

riffmongous

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

If you believe that my point does not hold you’ve done nothing to refute it.

Well the point is completely flawed, it doesnt make sense to use the current state of Irish architecture to make a guess at what some alternate history would be like, as the current state of Irish architecture is not independent of our actual history.

Khomeini

For the resources of people it benefited the coloniser greatly.

gozunda

Khomeini wrote: »

For the resources of people it benefited the coloniser greatly.

Which begs the question 'what the English ever do for us"

and before I get slated I refer humously to Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian'

Jawgap

gozunda wrote: »

Which begs the question 'what the English ever do for us"

and before I get slated I refer humously to Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian'

I refer the honourable gentleman to the post I made some moments (!) ago.....

pedroeibar1

riffmongous wrote: »

Well the point is completely flawed, it doesnt make sense to use the current state of Irish architecture to make a guess at what some alternate history would be like, as the current state of Irish architecture is not independent of our actual history.

You misunderstand me. I am not using the current state of Irish architecture to make a guess at what some alternate history would be like. We were discussing classical buildings and architecture through a colonial era and I outlined my views on the comparative development of architecture and ‘Big Houses’ in this former colony and England. The point I was answering was one made by Reekwind

Reekwind wrote: »

And who's to say that Ireland couldn't have developed her own style or imported it ...? Arguably Ireland would be better provisioned with classical buildings ...... if more wealth had remained in the country...

and also touched on by Manach.

Manach wrote: »

On the infrastructure argument - it could be countered that a non-Colonised Ireland would have developed the existing trading links to Europe and would have acted as a spur to a more sea-based economy, similar to the Hansetic League. For example Galway had strong ties to Spain and without the restrictive non-compete laws passed by London, could have grew to continental levels of trade.

There is no argument that Ireland could have developed its economy to a far greater extent had trade not been curtailed by writs from English Kings/Parliaments, but even the Navigation Acts in the latter half of the 1600’s did not subsequently curtail the exchange of ideas – political, religious and cultural.
For centuries smuggling and people trade went on with several places on the Continent - in addition to Manach’s mention of Galway one could add Youghal / Nantes and Dingle / Santiago /Oporto as other examples of places where there was a strong connection with Mainland Europe.
Those routes were open to travel officially or unofficially, the officer class Catholic Irish served in foreign armies in Spain, France, Austria, Poland and several other smaller states and did return home; similarly the Irish Colleges (St. Omer, Paris, Rome, Louvain, Salamanca, etc.) had their intake of Irish students who also returned.
The ability to travel, albeit less restrictive, was the same in England, where it was confined to the upper classes; they were the only ones who travelled and largely to the same places as the Irish. That position pertained up to about 50 years ago.

Simply put, regardless of being colonised, we had in Ireland Irish people who were exposed to foreign travel and design education / opportunities. An 'own-brand' Irish architectural design failed for two reasons. Firstly, too few opened their eyes, learned design and took opportunities (exceptions being Irish silverwork and lace (Galway, Kenmare and Youghal – all seaports).
Secondly, as I said earlier, we did not have the money and peaceful environment in which to execute larger scale projects. Those are the reasons why we do not have any ‘Irish’ architecture, bar a few round towers and some arguably 'Irish' Hiberno-Roman churches.

Then, in the decades after Independence we got the money, freedom from civil strife but we did not spend it on design, we spent it on bling and dross. Even the stone-faced cottages much loved by an Taisce and Planners have no place in Irish vernacular architecture. (If stone was used it was lime mortared and whitewashed.)

Architecturally Ireland is almost dead and the best of the young ones have left to work overseas. Generally the average Irish person would not know good design unless it was based on price (dear=good). Look at the crappy replacement windows used in every main street and suburb in Ireland. Look at the shopfronts. Look at the disorder in signage. Look at the visual impact effect the Dublin Corpo would have created with road traffic signs (until mercifully stopped by ministerial order.) That shows you the cultural aesthetic of the average Irish person. And explains why we still do not have anything remotely like style.

whisky_galore

Was it worth it?

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Fratton Fred

whisky_galore wrote: »

Was it worth it?

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

That's about it. It was done originally at a time when invading your neighbours to extend your kingdom was the done thing.

After that, every "invasion" as it were was not done on a whim, there was a reason (not claiming it to be good or bad). The most decisive I guess was Cromwell, who didn't just get out of bed the wrong side and take it out on Ireland, he was, as he saw it, protecting the new republic of England from royalist forces and took it upon himself to ensure that threat never arose again.

Nekarsulm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's about it. It was done originally at a time when invading your neighbours to extend your kingdom was the done thing.

After that, every "invasion" as it were was not done on a whim, there was a reason (not claiming it to be good or bad). The most decisive I guess was Cromwell, who didn't just get out of bed the wrong side and take it out on Ireland, he was, as he saw it, protecting the new republic of England from royalist forces and took it upon himself to ensure that threat never arose again.

How ironic that the most ruthless suppression occurred because we were anti-republican!

gozunda

Jawgap wrote: »

I refer the honourable gentleman to the post I made some moments (!) ago.....

Well done on the multi media input...my connection must be a bit behind!

dubhthach

Jawgap wrote: »

Don't forget the roads......

We weren't doing too bad on that even back in the Iron age . As for bridges there's the prime example of the Clonmacnoise wooden bridge from the 12th century.

Of course the argument that we wouldn't have any "classical architecture" is abit tedious. Kievan Rus wasn't invaded by the Normans let somehow there are plenty of classical architecture in modern St. Peterberg. Such styles are international, and spread due to style/fashion. One could see in the 12th century how church architecture in Ireland was already been influenced by France and Germany (Romanesque -- foundation of Cistercian monasteries such as Mellifont).

Even during the high medieval period alot of the major friaries were commissioned by Gaelic lords and were built in relevant European styles (Gothic etc.)

Jawgap

dubhthach wrote: »

We weren't doing too bad on that even back in the Iron age . As for bridges there's the prime example of the Clonmacnoise wooden bridge from the 12th century.

.....

ehhhh.......it was joke

dubhthach

Jawgap wrote: »

ehhhh.......it was joke

I know thence the

The second paragraph was more directed at the thread in general.

dubhthach

What people seem to have failed to mention on the thread is what drove Henry II. For him conquest/colonisation was worth the effort in the 1170's for the simple reason that he needed land/titles for his sons. Up until this point John his youngest son was going to inherit nothing. The spilt in the 1160's looked like the following:

England & Normandy, Anjou and Maine-- Henry the Young King
Aquitaine -- Richard (the Lionheart)
Brittany -- Geoffrey

John was left with nothing, this is why of course after the potential threat of Strongbow been declared a "King" (of Leinster), Henry rolled into Ireland and proceeded to have John declared "Lord of Ireland". Supposedly he had a crown made and had petitioned the Pope to make John "King of Ireland". Of course the deaths of "Henry the young King" and Geoffrey ended up upsetting the arithmetic and John was recalled from Ireland.

The rest of course is history, would have been an interesting alternative though that's for sure.

Frank Lee Midere

We did have classical architecture in Ireland but the apogee of classical architecture was the Georgian period where Anglo Irish classical architecture mirrored England as you would expect. A Gaelic aristocracy would have done the same.

As for since independence we were

1) too poor
2) came out of poverty as the brutalists got into swing everywhere.

It's not just us. Looked at bombed English cities and new towns. Compare to Bath.

And so fashionable was anti-Georgian sentiment that even Bath was under threat in the 70's

http://www.persephonebooks.co.uk/the-sack-of-bath.html

Kold

I really didn't expect the level of Architecture discussion. I'm ok with it though.