Was colonising Ireland worth it?

Kold · 18-03-2014 1:48pm #1

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 · 18-03-2014 3:25pm

1. England gained land and resources.

2. Prevented a Spanish or a French foothold in Ireland

Manach · 18-03-2014 6:28pm

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

mike65 · 18-03-2014 6:50pm

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 · 18-03-2014 11:54pm

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 · 19-03-2014 12:19am

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 · 19-03-2014 8:54am

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 · 19-03-2014 10:47am

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 · 19-03-2014 11:02am

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 · 19-03-2014 11:05am

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 · 19-03-2014 11:18am

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 · 19-03-2014 8:07pm

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 · 25-03-2014 12:32am

Lets be honest... No.

Jawgap · 25-03-2014 7:33am

owenc wrote: »

Lets be honest... No.

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

gozunda · 25-03-2014 7:51am

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 · 29-03-2014 3:27pm

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 · 30-03-2014 4:10am

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 · 31-03-2014 5:10pm

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 · 31-03-2014 6:37pm

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 · 31-03-2014 6:45pm

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 · 31-03-2014 6:52pm

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 · 31-03-2014 6:58pm

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 · 31-03-2014 7:04pm

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 · 31-03-2014 7:06pm

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 · 31-03-2014 7:06pm

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 · 31-03-2014 8:07pm

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 · 31-03-2014 8:22pm

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 · 31-03-2014 9:16pm

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 · 01-04-2014 8:39am

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 · 01-04-2014 8:51am

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 · 01-04-2014 10:51am

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.)

Was colonising Ireland worth it?

Comments