nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Irish invaded the UK.....actually

py2006

Interesting article here about the genetic make up of people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ok, NI is unsurprising but 44.8% of the Scots are of Irish ancestery and just look at the attached pic and you can see that in fact the Irish invaded the UK...ehem!

The Ancestry study found stark differences in the genetic make-up of people living in the UK. For example, English people have significantly less Irish ancestry - just 20 per cent of their genetic make-up - on average compared to people living in Scotland (43.84 per cent), Wales (31.99 per cent) and Northern Ireland (48.49 per cent).

English people have significantly less Irish ancestry - just 20 per cent of their genetic make-up - on average compared to people living in Scotland (43.84 per cent), Wales (31.99 per cent) and Northern Ireland (48.49 per cent).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Samaris

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Joe prim

KenjiOdo wrote: »

Thanks for your input, did you actually read the thread before trying to derail it with your immaturity?

*Reported your post

Ooh-er missus !:o

cfuserkildare

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

Jawgap

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

Think that was the Romans.......I mean what have the Romans ever done for us??? Eh?

Ptolemy the Roman geographer used it, but probably got it from a previous Greek description of the land.

Speaking of invasions......the Deva Victrix legionary garrison/fort at Chester was supposed to have been built with one eye on using it as a base to launch an invasion of Ireland by the XX Legion.......only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

Your Face

Bloody romans.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Samaris wrote: »

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat. They did not come via Scotland. The migration was from Ireland to Scotland replacing the Picts in western and South Western Scotland initially.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Speaking of invasions......the Deva Victrix legionary garrison/fort at Chester was supposed to have been built with one eye on using it as a base to launch an invasion of Ireland by the XX Legion.......only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

Probably morphed into FG and came over on de ferry?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Probably morphed into FG and came over on de ferry?

I don't know, I mean in late antiquity, the period we're talking about, the Romans had something of a habit of deifying their supreme leader who demanded unquestioning allegiance and protecting him with Praetorians who tended to deal brutally with dissent (as well as having a nice line in flags)......so more like the Shinners really

topper75

Jawgap wrote: »

T.....only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

AFAIK, population density would not have varied much from Britain at the time. Britain only really diverged from us in that regard through the Industrial Revolution.

I don't know the reason why they didn't to be honest.

You can guess away to your heart's content.

My own guess is that there was no centralised power to take down so it would have gone on "ad infinitum" as they would say themselves, legions tied up firefighting around the island for relatively little gain.

goose2005

Samaris wrote: »

The "original" settlers came to Ireland across the landbridge from Scotland about..8-10,000 years ago, as I recall from school. However, I wouldn't exactly call them Scottish. It was just general migration.

Recently extended to 12000 years after incised bear bones from the period were found.

LordSutch wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

Travel by water was easier than travel overland in the premodern era; a large amount of the "original" Irish came over from Iberia.

goose2005

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I also remember being confused about the reason why Rome labelled Ireland as Hibernia, especially when the Hibernii were a Lowland Scotland tribe?!?

The Iverni (Iouernoi) lived in Cork/Kerry

recylingbin

LordSutch wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of "Irish DNA" is descended from the Normans, Anglo Saxons etc?

...also, who were the Irish in the 1st place?

Surely to easiest & best way to get to Ireland post ice age was via the island of Britain, ergo surely the original settlers here were from Britain, or at least some of them were. This means that Irish people are actually the original Britons? Yes, no?

Discuss...

Basques, apparently.

Jawgap

topper75 wrote: »

AFAIK, population density would not have varied much from Britain at the time. Britain only really diverged from us in that regard through the Industrial Revolution.

I don't know the reason why they didn't to be honest.

You can guess away to your heart's content.

My own guess is that there was no centralised power to take down so it would have gone on "ad infinitum" as they would say themselves, legions tied up firefighting around the island for relatively little gain.

Peter Heather in his work looked at it and at the time Britain was invaded it was marginally 'profitable' as a province and really the only reason they pushed so far north beyond Chester & York was for reasons of security.

Similarly with Germania - beyond the Rhine / Danube the population densities just didn't stack up and what people there were tended to be drawn towards the frontier anyway.

Ireland would've required a naval 'lift' so would've been more expensive again to get a legion across - but they did trade with the locals, there's plenty of artefacts to support that idea and it's likely they used the island as a source of slaves for the villa farms - just as the Irish raided them for slaves. I think there was also some evidence that they paid small amounts of tribute (as protection money) to keep the raiding in check - only a tiny fraction of what they gave the Huns though!

cfuserkildare

Jaxx Sharp Squadron wrote: »

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat. They did not come via Scotland. The migration was from Ireland to Scotland replacing the Picts in western and South Western Scotland initially.

Ehmmm,

SCotland was populated thousands of years before the Picts arrived,

The Picts were Celts and named as Picts ( by the Romans) because we painted ourselves up before battle. ( ie " The Painted Ones ").

Also, the theory that Scotland was populated by Irish Basques falls apart when we see the submerged camp sites in the North Sea.

Also, flint from Lanarkshire confirms population in Scotland from at least 14'000 Years ago! or 12'000BC!

A Little Pony

No surprise to this Imperialist orangie.

Wibbs

recylingbin wrote: »

Basques, apparently.

Jaxx Sharp Squadron wrote: »

Not at all. DNA analysis suggest that the first post Ice age settlers were from the Basque region of Spain and came by boat.

Or not. More recent research has found we have no direct links with the Basques and the genetic marker previously thought shared is different between the two groups. Oh and the Basques aren't as ancient or as isolated either. DNA taken from prehistoric Basques show them to be different. Modern Basques while having an extremely ancient language are basically more "recent" isolates of Spanish and French in their areas. Basically they look more spanish or french than say dutch.

Anyway… Irish cave bears also look like "northern Spaniards" rather than the cave bears found in Britain and the rest of Europe. They hardly came across by boat did they? It seems what happened and has happened elsewhere is that earlier bears and humans were pushed to the fringes by later genetic influx, so what we see at the fringes like Ireland and northern Spain is the echoes of those original isolated groups.

As for the "British". THis recent study is another example of how badly so called science can be produced these days. The sample size is tiny for a start. 2000 IIRC. It also shows how some UK based media outlets think. So the Daily Mail has British = White English(which it pretty much did and does still in the minds of many).

The original Britons would have been pretty similar to the original Irish. The main difference being that that island had more influx and more sustained external influx from Rome, then the Saxons, Vikings and then their French descendants. We had the Vikings and Normans to some degree, but missed out on Saxons and not as in such numbers. This influx still generally follows from east to west, with the east and south showing more external genetics dropping off as you go westerly. IIRC was it the Blasket islanders who had subtly different genetic makeup to the rest of Ireland?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Ehmmm,

SCotland was populated thousands of years before the Picts arrived,

The Picts were Celts and named as Picts ( by the Romans) because we painted ourselves up before battle. ( ie " The Painted Ones ").

Also, the theory that Scotland was populated by Irish Basques falls apart when we see the submerged camp sites in the North Sea.

Also, flint from Lanarkshire confirms population in Scotland from at least 14'000 Years ago! or 12'000BC!

I didn't say the migration from Ireland was the first into Scotland. Far from it, as my earlier post says.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't know, I mean in late antiquity, the period we're talking about, the Romans had something of a habit of deifying their supreme leader who demanded unquestioning allegiance and protecting him with Praetorians who tended to deal brutally with dissent (as well as having a nice line in flags)......so more like the Shinners really

Sounds even more like FG tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PKF93HZv0

Waitsian

Badly Drunk Boy wrote:

I've done two DNA tests for genealogical purposes (and boy was I sickened to find out I wasn't adopted! ) but my brother has done a few others which trace the areas our ancestors came from, going back hundreds and thousands of years.

What tests, and which company, if I might ask please, did your brother use? Sounds intriguing.

LordSutch

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

It's possible to track where in the world your DNA came from (more or less). I've done two DNA tests for genealogical purposes (and boy was I sickened to find out I wasn't adopted! :pac: ) but my brother has done a few others which trace the areas our ancestors came from, going back hundreds and thousands of years. Mainly Irish, with a lot of older 'strains' going back to Scandinavia, Finland and tipping Russia, as well as some (not as strong) going to the Atlantic coast and central Europe.

This thread really should be in the history/heritage forum such is the complicated forensic & scientific nature of the subject.

Ted111

people from glacial refuge, early farmers from m.e and the yamna people and stir it all up liberally and that's who we all are. moving back and forth a little bit aside.

py2006

Bears??!!?

Badly Drunk Boy

mod9maple wrote: »

What tests, and which company, if I might ask please, did your brother use? Sounds intriguing.

The basic test I did was on Family Tree DNA but once they have your sample on file (the sample I gave was just a saliva/mouth swab), you can up grade to Y-DNA checks of 37, 67 or 111 marker matches (which my brother did). This is only for males, since females don't have the Y chromosome. The different number of marker matches give level of testing so the price reflects that.

The other test I got done was on 23andme which cost €169. After you apply for it, they send you a little vial where you deposit to saliva sample and send it back to them. 6 to 8 weeks later, you get your results; possible relations from around the world, probability of susceptibility to diseases or just physical characteristics. The health/disease element of it is a bit controversial, and isn't available to people in the US.

As Lord Sutch says, After Hours probably isn't the ideal place to discuss the complexities of this, and I've probably exhausted my knowledge of it. Interesting stuff, though.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sounds even more like FG tbh. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PKF93HZv0

Well given their propensity for disappearing political opponents and using thuggery to control the 'electorate,' manipulate votes and killing innocent mothers they really are more like the Shinners.

FG are more like the Patricians.

purplepanda

The King of Leinster High King of Ireland invaded Engand in 1168/9 to assist Anglo Saxon rebellions aganst the Normans.

I seem to recall the invasion by the River Taw Appledore Devon was defeated by a naval fleet from Britanny, related articles below

http://theconversation.com/battle-site-shows-the-norman-conquest-took-years-longer-than-1066-and-all-that-55335

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3460440/Is-Anglo-Saxon-rule-finally-crushed-Site-bloody-rematch-Battle-Hastings-Devon.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmait_mac_Máel_na_mBó;

BalcombeSt4

purplepanda wrote: »

The King of Leinster High King of Ireland invaded Engand in 1168/9 to assist Anglo Saxon rebellions aganst the Normans.

I seem to recall the invasion by the River Taw Appledore Devon was defeated by a naval fleet from Britanny, related articles below

http://theconversation.com/battle-site-shows-the-norman-conquest-took-years-longer-than-1066-and-all-that-55335

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3460440/Is-Anglo-Saxon-rule-finally-crushed-Site-bloody-rematch-Battle-Hastings-Devon.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmait_mac_Máel_na_mBó;

Thats kind of like saying Holland invaded Ireland when king Billy helped Protestant rebels against King James.

BalcombeSt4

Jawgap wrote: »

Well given their propensity for disappearing political opponents and using thuggery to control the 'electorate,' manipulate votes and killing innocent mothers they really are more like the Shinners.

FG are more like the Patricians.

Yeah because Loyalists & the British neverd manipulate & gerrymanderd the electorate sytem or killed innocent mothers. :rolleyes:

purplepanda

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Thats kind of like saying Holland invaded Ireland when king Billy helped Protestant rebels against King James.

Not exactly as the Goodwinson family had lived in Wexford in exile during the 1050's & fought as allies beside the Kinsella in many battles. It was only right that they help their allies in return.

pragmatic1

Jawgap wrote: »

Think that was the Romans.......I mean what have the Romans ever done for us??? Eh?

Ptolemy the Roman geographer used it, but probably got it from a previous Greek description of the land.

Speaking of invasions......the Deva Victrix legionary garrison/fort at Chester was supposed to have been built with one eye on using it as a base to launch an invasion of Ireland by the XX Legion.......only the figured that the population density here didn't make it a prospect for taxation so they didn't bother.

There was apparently trade between the Romans and the Gaelic tribes though. I think I read somewhere the the Romans also used Irish mercenaries for battles.

Jawgap

pragmatic1 wrote: »

There was apparently trade between the Romans and the Gaelic tribes though. I think I read somewhere the the Romans also used Irish mercenaries for battles.

There was. Roman artefacts have been found at Newgrange (probably brought and put there as votive offerings) and Tara, and in a few places up and down the east coast - the thinking seems to be that somewhere in the vicinity of Lambay Island and Loughshinny a market or trading operation that allowed exchange between the 2 societies was held, either periodically or was in place for a short time.

Hadn't heard about the mercenaries.