Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
ireland 1014-1169
Options
-
11-09-2013 7:41pm#1I have always wondered why ireland was never able to unify between the ages of the vikings and the normans,i mean they had 150 years to basically get their act together to become a single entity.Now i know what we consider a nation didnt exist back then but surely everyone spoke the same language there must have been some common ground between the various kingdoms and that a brian boru type figure who was strong and ruthless enough to be able to unify the minor chiefdoms into one kingdom.
I suppose there are many reasons why it didnt happen but when you take scotland for example they had more or less an independent kingdom up till 1603 and i assume they were quite similar to ireland in the middle ages in terms of culture and population.I would be just interested to know if anyone had views on why a unified kingdom never happened.1
Comments
-
I have always wondered why ireland was never able to unify between the ages of the vikings and the normans,i mean they had 150 years to basically get their act together to become a single entity.Now i know what we consider a nation didnt exist back then but surely everyone spoke the same language there must have been some common ground between the various kingdoms and that a brian boru type figure who was strong and ruthless enough to be able to unify the minor chiefdoms into one kingdom.
I suppose there are many reasons why it didnt happen but when you take scotland for example they had more or less an independent kingdom up till 1603 and i assume they were quite similar to ireland in the middle ages in terms of culture and population.I would be just interested to know if anyone had views on why a unified kingdom never happened.
I see this period as one of transition. A time when the old Gaelic system of holding power from a fancy rath or crannog in pasture was becoming redundant and being replaced by urban centres.
After 1014 there would have been still strong concentrations of power in the norse cities. Norse hadn't been driven from the land. By this stage most people in the norse towns would have had Irish blood but culturally they were something else something not very Irish imo. Unification would have needed control of these urban centres.0 -
I had forgotten that our cities were all founded by vikings and would still have a strong norse influence so i suppose the norse would still have cultural differences with the native irish and without the trade and commerce that urban areas bring that governance of the country would have been unlikely.Its a period of history that to me dosent get much attention and it would interesting to know what developments took place in those 150 years.0
-
This is a subject time-line that I, for one, would like to see continue. I have nothing to contribute to it, but I find the subject of the Scandinavians in Ireland to be endlessly interesting and look forward to reading more informed comment on the subject matter.
The Irish side of my family has unmistakeable connections with Scandinavia from our physical appearance back at least four generations - something that did not just pop out of the woodwork four generations ago, and continued with MY offspring and THEIR offspring - we all look remarkably similar in facial characteristics and body build to the average Southern Swede or Norwegian/Dane. This is something that has always been a source of interest to both me and my father before me, and HIS father, too. We obviously carry a strong genetic archetype down the centuries from the time of the Scandinavian occupation of SE Ireland.
Keep it coming!
tac0 -
I have always wondered why ireland was never able to unify between the ages of the vikings and the normans,i mean they had 150 years to basically get their act together to become a single entity.Now i know what we consider a nation didnt exist back then but surely everyone spoke the same language there must have been some common ground between the various kingdoms and that a brian boru type figure who was strong and ruthless enough to be able to unify the minor chiefdoms into one kingdom.
I suppose there are many reasons why it didnt happen but when you take scotland for example they had more or less an independent kingdom up till 1603 and i assume they were quite similar to ireland in the middle ages in terms of culture and population.I would be just interested to know if anyone had views on why a unified kingdom never happened.
I think you are confusing the concept of Nation and Nation-state (a 19th century concept at that). Any reading of Irish history during the period will show the fact that it was in the process of centralisation ala the rest of western Europe. So for example you start seeing the Ó Conchobhair kings giving "land grants" akin to what you see in other European states.
You also see the development of Kings granting Dublin to their son (and potential heir). A process in sense similar to the english practise of naming the heir to the throne as "Prince of Wales".
We see Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair dividing up part of Meath in response to the murder of his son (and heir) Conchobhar.M1144.7
Conchobhar, mac Toirrdhealbhaigh Uí Conchobhair, aird-riogh-dhamhna Ereann, & rí Mídhe frí ré leth-bhliadhna, do mharbhadh ag Bealach Mhuine na Siridhe, la h-Ua n-Dublaich, tigherna Fer Tulach, uair ba rí eachtair-cheneóil lais a bheith-siomh i ríghe uas Fearaibh Midhe. Toirrdhealbhach do thabhairt Iarthair Midhe do Dhonnchadh, mac Muirchertaigh Ui Mhaoilechlainn, & Airther Midhe do chomhrainn etir Tighernán Ua Ruairc, tigherna Breifne, & Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, rí Laighen, & a m-beith for a c-comairccibh samhlaidh ó Chonnachtaibh.
M1144.10
Slóighedh lá Toirrdhealbhach Ua c-Conchobhair i Midhe d'órdughadh a rígh. Tug ó Loch Ainind sair do Murchadh Ua Maoileachlainn, & ó Loch Ainind siar do mac Muirchertaigh Uí Mhaoileachlainn. Tugtha dna ceithre céd bó d'Feraibh Mídhe i n-éraic Chonchobhair a meic do Thoirrdealbhach Ua c-Conchobhair.
Translation:M1144.7
Conchobhar, son of Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair, heir apparent to the monarchy of Ireland, was killed at Bealach Muine-na-Siride, by Ua Dubhlaich, lord of Feara-Tulach, for he considered him as a stranger in sovereignty over the men of Meath. Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair gave West Meath to Donnchadh, son of Muircheartach Ua Maeleachlainn; and he divided East Meath equally between Tighearnan Ua Ruairc, lord of Breifne, and Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, King of Leinster, and they remained thus under the protection of the Connaughtmen.
M1144.10
An army was led by Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair into Meath, to appoint its kings. He gave from Loch-Aininn eastwards to Murchadh Ua Maeleachlainn, and from Loch-Aininn westwards to the son of Muircheartach Ua Maeleachlainn. And four hundred cows were given by the men of Meath to Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair, as eric for his son, Conchobhar.
He had originally given the whole of Kingdom of Meath to his son (and heir). Conchobhar however was killed by Ua Dubhlaich (Ó Dubhlaoich == Dooley), as a result he divided Meath into four parts. Western Meath between two members of the Ua Maolsleachain family and "East Meath" between Ua Ruairc of Bréifne and Diarmaid Mac Murchadha of Leinster.
He also extracted an Eric on the meathmen for the killing of Conchobar. The situation isn't a whole lot different then what we see happening in Europe with the likes of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. If anything the Empire at the time is an interesting parallel to Ireland.0 -
Some interesting posts,is it fair to say that maybe not a unified kingdom was taking shape but some form of confederacy that would lead to something more permanent and would be able to halt the norman invasion or was a successful norman colony always inevitable because of their superior skill in warfare.I also found it interesting that henry second was alarmed at strongbows success and felt he was forging his own kingdom in ireland,was that ever a possibility and if so would it have changed the course of our history.I also wonder about the interaction between the irish and the normans,on the one hand ive heard they felt we were an inferior race but ive also heard that the normans forged alliances with the natives and became more irish than the irish themselves,not sure if thats true, its probably overstated.0
-
Advertisement
-
No I wouldn't say confederation, the reason why the period after 1072 is so violent is the actual fact that the "Kings" are fighting to become a sole King. In comparison if you go back to the period up to 994 it's really a case of just a cosy cartel switching a title between themselves each time -- between Northern Uí Néill and Southern Uí Néill.
There's two reason's that Diarmait sought Norman mercenaries.- Reclaim the kingship of Laighin (Leinster -- but not as we know it)
- Challenge Ruaidrí for the High-Kingship, a position his great-grandfather had held "with oppostion" (Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó)
The problem for Ireland in the end was that Diarmait had to go and die in May of 1171. This left Henry II with intolerable position that one of his most hated vassals (Strongbow) could set himself up as a foreign king. Thence Henry II invading in November 1171.
Diarmait death was unexepected but it was probably brought on by a train of action that he himself set in place when he decided to go about crippling the power of his old-enemy Tigernán Ua Ruairc.
Diarmait had given his son Conchobar as a hostage to Ruaidrí in 1169 as part of negotiations which would have seen Ruaidrí recognised Diarmait position in Leinster. Once a permant peace had been reached Ruaidrí would promise one of his daughters to Conchobar. Likewise no new foregin troops would be introduced to the country and those already here would be sent back.
Once Ruaidrí and his forces had withdrawn though another ship of Cambro-Normans (10 knights, 30 mounted archers, 100 foot archers) led by Maurice fitz Gerald arrived into Wexford harbour. This basically allowed Diarmait to go with the idea of supplanting Ruaidhrí in the position of High-King. Subsequently you see the arrival of Raymond "le Gros" fitz Gerald and of course Strongbow (with subsequent capture of Waterford and Dublin).
Anyways in 1170 Diarmait and Strongbow set about cripling the power of Tigernán Ua Ruairc by raiding up into Midhe and Bréifne. During which they burnt Clonard, Kells and several other monastic sites. They also set about restoring their ally Domhnall Bregach Ua Máel Sechlainn to kingship of Midhe (Ruaidrí had divided Midhe between himself, Tigernán and the rest to the Ua Máel Sechlainn's).
The result of this was that Tigernán Ua Ruairc reacted by demanding that Ruaidrí exact his price. In this case by executing the three hostages that he was holding these were:- Conchobar mac Murchada -- Diarmait's son
- one of Diarmait's grandson's (son of Domhnall Caomhnach)
- Murchad Ua Cáellaide -- son of Diarmait's foster-brother
Diarmait withdrew to Ferns for the winter and then died the following May, supposedly "broken hearted". Of course if had lived longer there's a chance that you would have seen a situation develop like in Scotland. A "Gaelic monarchy" using a norman incomers to centralise. That's really the main difference with Scotland, there the Norman's were invited in (much like here), but it didnt result in the invasion of King of England.
As for integration, the Norman's married Irish women, by the mid 13th century you would see "Norman" lords who were three generations mixed. As a result unsurprising they ended up speaking Irish, riding their horses without stirrups and abandoning primogeniture for the Irish derbfhine system.0 -
never thought that diarmuids death could have such an impact but what you say makes a lot of since,suppose it wasnt much different from when the irish kings were using vikings as hired help but unfortunetly the normans led indirectly to the english king.any books you could recomend from that period,excellent post btw.0
-
The nation state was an idea which realy come to fruition in the 19th Century with the advent of technologies (telegraph, railways etc)that could bind people with a shared culture - Germany, Italy etc. Examples of a people that had never achieved such a state but remained recognisable as an overriding shared culture would be the ancient Greek states, made up of 100s of independent polis.
So Ireland might have evolved into a centralised state (shared language, religion RC, culture being the bedrocks) under the pressure of outside forces such as the Normans, but did not quite do so.0 -
One of the interesting things I remember from the reading about the Waterford excavations report is that prior to the Norman conquest of Waterford there was a sharp trade with Norman areas. Urban areas in Ireland was being sucked into a new sphere of influence even prior to the conquest.
I suspect the other posters are right that Ireland would have had no trouble evolving into a centralised state given the opportunity but the SE and also the NE were such easy pickings for overseas forces.0 -
Not in terms of centralisation. In this regard Ireland in the 11th C was far behind most of Europe, never mind England. Even in France or Germany, where centrifugal forces had largely torn apart the old Carolingian order, the political units were much larger and more coherent and administrative institutions more firmly establishedThe situation isn't a whole lot different then what we see happening in Europe with the likes of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. If anything the Empire at the time is an interesting parallel to Ireland.
There was a process of consolidation going on, and the Norman threat could only have accelerated this, but Ireland lagged far behind the rest of Europe in the development of its political structures0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a subject time-line that I, for one, would like to see continue. I have nothing to contribute to it, but I find the subject of the Scandinavians in Ireland to be endlessly interesting and look forward to reading more informed comment on the subject matter.
The Irish side of my family has unmistakeable connections with Scandinavia from our physical appearance back at least four generations - something that did not just pop out of the woodwork four generations ago, and continued with MY offspring and THEIR offspring - we all look remarkably similar in facial characteristics and body build to the average Southern Swede or Norwegian/Dane. This is something that has always been a source of interest to both me and my father before me, and HIS father, too. We obviously carry a strong genetic archetype down the centuries from the time of the Scandinavian occupation of SE Ireland.
Keep it coming!
tac
Do a DNA test Tac, if you have not already done one, they can be quite revealing.0 -
-
Do a DNA test Tac, if you have not already done one, they can be quite revealing.
DNA testing hasn't quite reached the point where I'd be comfortable recommending it just for determining ethnicity. It's very much under development.
There are efforts underway specifically focused on Ireland though. It will be interesting to see where we are in five years.0
Advertisement