If Ireland was never colonised?

fryup · 14-03-2013 7:28pm #1

Now i don't mean this to be a brit-bashing thread,

But i've often wonder what ireland would be like today and recent past if it was never colonised.

would....

* the country be economically wealthy?
* irish be the main language?
* the population be alot bigger? (no famine?)
* Dublin be the capital?
* we have such a large irish diaspora abroad? (no need to leave due to famine/eviction?)
* our relations with the UK be cosy/frosty?
* our national characteristics be different - more self confident & sophisticated? less begrudgery & underhand?

well what do you think....

Pawwed Rig · 14-03-2013 7:39pm

Colonised by who? The British, the Vikings, Normans, Celts etc have all colonised Ireland. With no colonisation it would be an empty land. I am assuming here you are talking about the Norman/British colonisation.

I think Ireland would have seen much more war over the centuries were it not for being part of the UK. It would have been fairly strategic to attack the west coast of the UK and would have been a good docking point on the way to the New World.

Hidalgo · 14-03-2013 7:46pm

No guarantees that there would never have been a famine. Its probable that Ireland and England would have been trading partners due to the proximity. Potatoes would have been grown and therefore failed. However who knows what the response would have been if Ireland was ruled internally rather than externally;.
IMO the island would still have had violence after the time the first Normans came here due to continuous power struggles amongst Irish chieftans until at least one dominant clan held power

Impossible to say if we would be economically wealthy??

mickmackey1 · 15-03-2013 12:32am

Hidalgo wrote: »

Impossible to say if we would be economically wealthy??

Highly unlikely, we just didn't have the same raw materials as the Brits, principally coal and iron ore, along with cotton from... their other colonies

Manach · 15-03-2013 1:08am

Offhand and playing the counterfactual history game in a period I'd only have a passing knowledge of:
A Unified Ireland from the dynasty of Brian Boru, who did not die at Clontarf establishes a strong central authority back by an effective and learned Church. During the time of the Viking and Normal invasions, an Irish force allied to the native Saxons checks both invaders and then as the major power player proceeds in alliance with Welsh and Scotish allies takes de-facto control over a divided Angle-land and proceeds to make full use of the vast wooden/woolen resources to create a Europe wide trading empire ... (nice daydream anyways)

Fratton Fred · 15-03-2013 8:46am

Manach wrote: »

Offhand and playing the counterfactual history game in a period I'd only have a passing knowledge of:
A Unified Ireland from the dynasty of Brian Boru, who did not die at Clontarf establishes a strong central authority back by an effective and learned Church. During the time of the Viking and Normal invasions, an Irish force allied to the native Saxons checks both invaders and then as the major power player proceeds in alliance with Welsh and Scotish allies takes de-facto control over a divided Angle-land and proceeds to make full use of the vast wooden/woolen resources to create a Europe wide trading empire ... (nice daydream anyways)

...and eventually moves the seat of power to an existing convenient port for exporting to Europe on the river Thames and spends the next 800 years putting down rebellious lords back in the various regions of the new united kingdoms!

robp · 15-03-2013 1:36pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Colonised by who? The British, the Vikings, Normans, Celts etc have all colonised Ireland. With no colonisation it would be an empty land. I am assuming here you are talking about the Norman/British colonisation.

I think Ireland would have seen much more war over the centuries were it not for being part of the UK. It would have been fairly strategic to attack the west coast of the UK and would have been a good docking point on the way to the New World.

To say that Ireland was colonised by the Celts is pure conjecture. On the otherhand the Viking did come and influence Irish society. Yet, the latest evidence would indicate very few Norse came and those that came probably went native rapidly without influencing the Irish language, DNA or religion significantly. If it was a colony it was a failed one.

The Norman and British attempts were not separate. They were a continuation of each other. Ireland was colonised in ancient times but there was only one attempt at a colony in a colonial sense; the Norman/British one.

fryup wrote: »

Now i don't mean this to be a brit-bashing thread,

But i've often wonder what ireland would be like today and recent past if it was never colonised.

would....

* the country be economically wealthy?
* irish be the main language?
* the population be alot bigger? (no famine?)
* Dublin be the capital?
* we have such a large irish diaspora abroad? (no need to leave due to famine/eviction?)
* our relations with the UK be cosy/frosty?

well what do you think....

I think economic wealth is hard to calculate as this moves in cycles. I suspect the Irish population would be bigger and far more like the six countries spatially, in that the population would be more clustered in the richer lowlands of the east, while the west might be less populated then the present.

There would be vastly different distribution of surnames. Irish churches would be far older (particularly Catholic ones). We might have ancient universities which developed out of early monastic centres perhaps in Clonmacnoise or Armagh. We probably would have many more country mansions built out of converted towerhouses inhabited by the Gaelic royal class. Perhaps most interesting is to speculate what would be the typical tourist image or cliché of Ireland. Perhaps instead of the cliché image of the tiny thatched cottage in the west of Ireland there would be country mansions in wealthy parts of Leinster.

tac foley · 15-03-2013 11:30pm

I just wonder how a totally independent Ireland - without the interference of the Scottish protestant and catholic plantations in the North-east - would have maintained that independence with the isolate Irish language, and how long it would have been before protestant England would have felt threatened enough by its location between two strongly catholic countries - France and Ireland - to have allied itself with the many other protestant countries in Europe and invaded Ireland anyhow - not by the almost peaceful plantation method - but by real force of arms.

tac

Sound of Silence · 15-03-2013 11:36pm

tac foley wrote: »

I just wonder how a totally independent Ireland - without the interference of the Scottish protestant and catholic plantations in the North-east - would have maintained that independence with the isolate Irish language, and how long it would have been before protestant England would have felt threatened enough by its location between two strongly catholic countries - France and Ireland - to have allied itself with the many other protestant countries in Europe and invaded Ireland anyhow - not by the almost peaceful plantation method - but by real force of arms.

tac

Sounds like the Nine Years War.

getzls · 16-03-2013 5:18am

As in now, they would still go cap in hand to their big friendly neighbour Britain for help in time of need.

Chuck Stone · 16-03-2013 5:49am

getzls wrote: »

As in now, they would still go cap in hand to their big friendly neighbour Britain for help in time of need.

And the bullshit starts.

the_syco · 16-03-2013 5:56am

Hidalgo wrote: »

Potatoes would have been grown and therefore failed.

Well, we'd have kept the spuds, and not sent all the good spuds to england.

Pretty sure the english showed our farmers the benefits of using a fence to separate the land. But as mentioned, we were always at war with each other, so it'd only be a matter of time before someone took over the separated masses.

Pawwed Rig · 16-03-2013 2:48pm

Ireland would have had to have a strong unity and military strength as there would have been inevitable wars that threatened independence whether from UK or other European powers. We would have needed a strong navy proportional to that of the British. Ireland would also have needed to become a colonial power (of itself rather than jointly with UK) given the leaps forward that the European colonial powers made during the period. It is conceivable that areas of Canada and Northern US could have been Irish possessions for a period.
Access to raw materials would have been critical. Industrialisation would have to have come at an earlier time.
Assuming by this we managed to avoid the famine and gre at the same rate as the Industrial parts of the UK there would now be between 15-20 million people in Ireland. Dublin and Belfast would most likely be the biggest cities with Dublin having 6 million plus.

clear thinking · 16-03-2013 3:07pm

It's an excellent question, if the question narrowed to deliberate plantations we might still be part of the UK as the hybrid irsh clan and norse fuedal system would probably have evolved differently without the antagonism the upheaval created.

the_syco · 16-03-2013 5:09pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Dublin and Belfast would most likely be the biggest cities with Dublin having 6 million plus.

Why Belfast? If NI didn't exist as Ireland was united, Belfast would be like Cork; far away from the capital. If anything, Dublin would be a capital due to the Vikings, and possibly Galway would be a shipping hub for stuff going to the States. In saying that, Belfast may be a large trading town, for trade with Scotland, and Nordic countries?

tac foley · 16-03-2013 6:14pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ireland would have had to have a strong unity and military strength as there would have been inevitable wars that threatened independence whether from UK or other European powers. We would have needed a strong navy proportional to that of the British. Ireland would also have needed to become a colonial power (of itself rather than jointly with UK) given the leaps forward that the European colonial powers made during the period. It is conceivable that areas of Canada and Northern US could have been Irish possessions for a period.
Access to raw materials would have been critical. Industrialisation would have to have come at an earlier time.
Assuming by this we managed to avoid the famine and gre at the same rate as the Industrial parts of the UK there would now be between 15-20 million people in Ireland. Dublin and Belfast would most likely be the biggest cities with Dublin having 6 million plus.

Ireland would have needed its own industrial revolution. How was that going to happen with no coal to speak of, no industry to speak of and probably nothing that anybody would exchange for them?

What I'm asking is simple on the face of it. How would a basically agricultural and tribal nation transform itself into a necessarily powerful and militaristic colonising nation that spoke a language that nobody else could understand?

tac

Pawwed Rig · 16-03-2013 6:52pm

tac foley wrote: »

Ireland would have needed its own industrial revolution. How was that going to happen with no coal to speak of, no industry to speak of and probably nothing that anybody would exchange for them?

What I'm asking is simple on the face of it. How would a basically agricultural and tribal nation transform itself into a necessarily powerful and militaristic colonising nation that spoke a language that nobody else could understand?

An industrial revolution built on turf??:) Sure I agree there would need to have been overseas trade routes that would bring in the necessary resources and I imagine there would have been a fair few wars with the UK where Ireland occupied parts of Wales for periods of time in an attempt to secure coal pits there but ultimately overseas territories would be impossible to hold onto.
I doubt the language part would make any difference. It is not unusual in this world to speak 3-4 languages. It's just unusual here.
The tribalism would have broken down as the population swelled.

the_syco wrote: »

Why Belfast? If NI didn't exist as Ireland was united, Belfast would be like Cork; far away from the capital. If anything, Dublin would be a capital due to the Vikings, and possibly Galway would be a shipping hub for stuff going to the States. In saying that, Belfast may be a large trading town, for trade with Scotland, and Nordic countries?

I would imagine most of the population would live on the east coast as it would be closer to trading partners similar to England where a large portion of the population live in London and surrounding areas.
I doubt Galway would be a shipping hub. Cork would be more suitable as it could take the passing trade from the UK and maybe even France.

Ultimately Ireland is poorly positioned to really have ever had much of an impact on European history.

ejmaztec · 16-03-2013 7:46pm

I imagine that more would have been made of the fishing industry, similar to Iceland's effort.

Paramite Pie · 16-03-2013 10:08pm

Considering the tensions between France and England we would have been a puppet to one or the other. Many Gaelic nobles had strong ties to the French but I doubt they saw us as equals. We would've been a backdoor to England in their eyes no doubt.

The Spanish may have also invaded at some point. Whether we would've defended our shores sufficiently is anyone's guess.

In the early 1300s, several Irish chieftains and the king of Scotland joined forces against the English and most of Ireland under control of the Gaelic alliance (unofficial title) but were halted by the great famine of 1317 (caused by severe weather). It was a destructive war and many Irish chieftains were none to pleased by it either, preferring to deal with the the 'foreigners' they already new.

Had Scotland liberated Ireland, the Scottish King Edward de Brus would have become high king of Ireland (the O'Neills recognised him as high king already but few others did). What would have been the outcome?

We would've had allies against future invasions at least. Maybe we would've invaded others.:P

Hidalgo wrote: »

Potatoes would have been grown and therefore failed.

The cause of the famine was the over-reliance on potatoes (what did the Irish eat before the New World?

) which was driven by several factors:

The Irish were renting small patches of land from British landlords due to high price of rent as well as the fact that they had such big families to feed. The only crop that would grow quick enough in damp Irish weather to feed everyone was the humble spud.

So the spud replaced more traditional food out of necessity. Had the Irish enough land to plant multiple crops the potato would've had less impact.

nuac · 17-03-2013 6:05pm

the_syco wrote: »

Why Belfast? If NI didn't exist as Ireland was united, Belfast would be like Cork; far away from the capital. If anything, Dublin would be a capital due to the Vikings, and possibly Galway would be a shipping hub for stuff going to the States. In saying that, Belfast may be a large trading town, for trade with Scotland, and Nordic countries?

Cork Harbour was far superior to Galway

An Coilean · 22-03-2013 2:51pm

tac foley wrote: »

I just wonder how a totally independent Ireland - without the interference of the Scottish protestant and catholic plantations in the North-east - would have maintained that independence with the isolate Irish language, and how long it would have been before protestant England would have felt threatened enough by its location between two strongly catholic countries - France and Ireland - to have allied itself with the many other protestant countries in Europe and invaded Ireland anyhow - not by the almost peaceful plantation method - but by real force of arms.

tac

Dear lord, open a book. The plantations happened in the context of an Ireland destroyed by war.
The Desmond Rebellion, the Nine years War and the 1641 Rebellion were the backdrop of the plantations.
A huge proporation of the native population were killed over those years, Both from actual fighting and starvation caused by the warfare which decended to scorched earth and masacare at times.
If thats not 'real force of arms' I dont know what is.

Gambas · 22-03-2013 3:03pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ireland would have had to have a strong unity and military strength as there would have been inevitable wars that threatened independence whether from UK or other European powers. We would have needed a strong navy proportional to that of the British. Ireland would also have needed to become a colonial power (of itself rather than jointly with UK) given the leaps forward that the European colonial powers made during the period. It is conceivable that areas of Canada and Northern US could have been Irish possessions for a period.
Access to raw materials would have been critical. Industrialisation would have to have come at an earlier time.
Assuming by this we managed to avoid the famine and gre at the same rate as the Industrial parts of the UK there would now be between 15-20 million people in Ireland. Dublin and Belfast would most likely be the biggest cities with Dublin having 6 million plus.

Aside from London, every other large population centre in the UK grew as a result of proximity to or trade of resources that fueled the industrialization.

Places like York, great cities (glorified towns) of the past remained stuck in first gear, just like Ireland.

We were cursed and blessed by geography. Stuck out in the Atlantic beyond a bigger island, not caught between two other countries and turned into a battleground, but that also meant we held little strategic value for trade.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-03-2013 3:07pm

If we had never been colonised then we'd still own Scotland, and all that north sea oil and gas.

If they vote for independence next year we could hook up with them again

H3llR4iser · 22-03-2013 3:35pm

mmm...mostly agricultural, pastoral and fishing I guess? The only place in a similar situation that I can think of is Iceland, and they have a predominantly fishing and manufacturing economy, due to the fact most of the territory is mountainous so not arable and they have plenty of geothermal energy to power industry.

Most of the territory in Ireland is, on the contrary, either arable or suitable for pastures. Quite a bit of resources to be found in the sea in the form of fish. With no energy resources to speak of, at least none that were accessible in the 19th century, I don't really see how an industrial revolution could have been sustained.

The language would have definitely been a barrier - undeniably English was as much as a factor as low taxes were to lure US investors in the last 30 years.

Maybe it would have been a thriving economy based on exports of fish and meat, but I am somewhat doubtful...wonder if anyone built any kind of data or mathematical model about the scenario.

robp · 22-03-2013 10:06pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

mmm...mostly agricultural, pastoral and fishing I guess? The only place in a similar situation that I can think of is Iceland, and they have a predominantly fishing and manufacturing economy, due to the fact most of the territory is mountainous so not arable and they have plenty of geothermal energy to power industry.

Most of the territory in Ireland is, on the contrary, either arable or suitable for pastures. Quite a bit of resources to be found in the sea in the form of fish. With no energy resources to speak of, at least none that were accessible in the 19th century, I don't really see how an industrial revolution could have been sustained.

The language would have definitely been a barrier - undeniably English was as much as a factor as low taxes were to lure US investors in the last 30 years.

Maybe it would have been a thriving economy based on exports of fish and meat, but I am somewhat doubtful...wonder if anyone built any kind of data or mathematical model about the scenario.

What about Finland? Mediocre location for trade, extremely cold, far less farming than Ireland and a unique language but yet they are doing fine without relying on primary industries. There are other examples too. In the modern world natural resources are not essential for an affluent services based economy.

PhotogTom · 22-03-2013 10:19pm

I'm fascinated by the idea of Brian Boru, and his son, surviving Clontarf. The idea of Ireland as a nation instead of a tribal society means that Ireland is cohesive enough to grow into a strong power on its own. Ireland colonizes England early and the Norman invasion never happens. Ireland becomes the dominant world power in the age of sail. Irish and Brehon Law dominate the world instead of English and crime and punishment.
Do I need to write the novel

or does anyone know of one similar?!

tac foley · 22-03-2013 10:38pm

robp wrote: »

What about Finland? Mediocre location for trade, extremely cold, far less farming than Ireland and a unique language but yet they are doing fine without relying on primary industries. There are other examples too. In the modern world natural resources are not essential for an affluent services based economy.

However, let's just look at a few things that the Finns do that Ireland does not -

1. They build ships - HUGE ships - cruise ships bigger than almost anybody else. Container ships, too, LOTS of container ships. RO-RO ferries, icebreakers, boaty stuff.

2. They have a thriving armament manufacturing base - VALMET Oy, and also TAMPELLA Oy. Their admittedly small armed forces uses Finnish-built motor transport to the exclusion of just about everything else - SISU Trucks.

3. Their electronics companies are not owned out of country - NOKIA is Finnish.

4. They have a thriving small-arms manufacturing base - SAKO and Tikka.

5. They have little agriculture, but gazillions of trees to export.

That apart, they are actually more or less in the same boat as the RoI -

Finland agriculture - 2.6%

RoI agriculture - 2%

Finland services - 68.2%

RoI services - 69%

Finland Industries - 29.1%

RoI industries - 29%

However, let's be bold about it - you need to sell a LOT of Guinness to offset a single $250,000,000 cruise liner...as you can see from the eye-watering difference in the Finnish and Irish GDP.

Finland GDP - $266 Billion [2011]

RoI GDP - eu 159 Bn [2011]

tac

tac foley · 22-03-2013 10:40pm

PhotogTom wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the idea of Brian Boru, and his son, surviving Clontarf. The idea of Ireland as a nation instead of a tribal society means that Ireland is cohesive enough to grow into a strong power on its own. Ireland colonizes England early and the Norman invasion never happens. Ireland becomes the dominant world power in the age of sail. Irish and Brehon Law dominate the world instead of English and crime and punishment.
Do I need to write the novel or does anyone know of one similar?!

You need to write the novel.

tac

pedroeibar1 · 22-03-2013 11:03pm

tac foley wrote: »

4. They have a thriving small-arms manufacturing base - SAKO and Tikka.

tac

Tut Tut Tac, surprised at you. Both are owned by the Italians, (Beretta).;)

tac foley · 22-03-2013 11:13pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Tut Tut Tac, surprised at you. Both are owned by the Italians, (Beretta).;)

So they are. BUT they started off as Finnish.

The rest of the $265,010,000,000 IS Finnish though.:P

tac

pedroeibar1 · 22-03-2013 11:20pm

tac foley wrote: »

So they are. BUT they started off as Finnish.

Before being rescued from near-bankruptcy.

tac foley wrote: »

The rest of the $265,010,000,000 IS Finnish though.:P

tac

Is that what Nokia's debt is now? :P
P.
PS But I like the comparisons:)

tac foley · 22-03-2013 11:25pm

I'll come back in this 'conversation' the day that the RoI builds a $250,000,000 cruise liner.

Hey, I'll be generous - let's make just a lil' bitty $100,000,000 cruise liner and say we're quits, eh?

tac

robp · 22-03-2013 11:51pm

tac foley wrote: »

However, let's just look at a few things that the Finns do that Ireland does not -

1. They build ships - HUGE ships - cruise ships bigger than almost anybody else. Container ships, too, LOTS of container ships. RO-RO ferries, icebreakers, boaty stuff.

2. They have a thriving armament manufacturing base - VALMET Oy, and also TAMPELLA Oy. Their admittedly small armed forces uses Finnish-built motor transport to the exclusion of just about everything else - SISU Trucks.

3. Their electronics companies are not owned out of country - NOKIA is Finnish.

4. They have a thriving small-arms manufacturing base - SAKO and Tikka.

5. They have little agriculture, but gazillions of trees to export.

That apart, they are actually more or less in the same boat as the RoI -

Finland agriculture - 2.6%

RoI agriculture - 2%

Finland services - 68.2%

RoI services - 69%

Finland Industries - 29.1%

RoI industries - 29%

However, let's be bold about it - you need to sell a LOT of Guinness to offset a single $250,000,000 cruise liner...as you can see from the eye-watering difference in the Finnish and Irish GDP.

Finland GDP - $266 Billion [2011]

RoI GDP - eu 159 Bn [2011]

tac

Of course. Finland has industry but Ireland could have ended up comparably if history was different. Like Ireland Finland industrialised late in the 20th century after a disastrous famine in the 19th century. Like Ireland it has limited natural resources. I just don't believe that Ireland without the English language would be improvised. Of course I would say that with my Irish avatar though! Also Iceland is not comparable at all to Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-03-2013 6:38pm

tac foley wrote: »

I'll come back in this 'conversation' the day that the RoI builds a $250,000,000 cruise liner.

Hey, I'll be generous - let's make just a lil' bitty $100,000,000 cruise liner and say we're quits, eh?

tac

What about the Titanic :pac:

jonniebgood1 · 23-03-2013 8:32pm

tac foley wrote: »

However, let's be bold about it - you need to sell a LOT of Guinness to offset a single $250,000,000 cruise liner...as you can see from the eye-watering difference in the Finnish and Irish GDP.

Finland GDP - $266 Billion [2011]

RoI GDP - eu 159 Bn [2011]

tac

I tried to stay out of this thread as I am not sure if I should be moving it from history to a different forum but I do need to point out that your figures are neither eye-watering, nor correct as far as I can see.

What are you basing the figures you give on and how are you achieving a 'like for like' comparison? I am only asking but have you taken into account population difference between Finland and Ireland or the different currencies which you seem to be showing.

The eurostat figures are here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114

According to eurostat the like for like GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards index shows Ireland ahead of Finland.

Map here http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/mapToolClosed.do;jsessionid=9ea7d07d30db3506a0543a944077b00fb071c655224b.e34MbxeSaxaSc40LbNiMbxeNaxuSe0?tab=map&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114&toolbox=types

H3llR4iser · 29-03-2013 2:33pm

robp wrote: »

What about Finland? Mediocre location for trade, extremely cold, far less farming than Ireland and a unique language but yet they are doing fine without relying on primary industries. There are other examples too. In the modern world natural resources are not essential for an affluent services based economy.

Finland has, or at least used to have until the 1990s, one of the biggest forestry industries of the world, facilitated by the fact the territory is full of rivers and waterways to aid transportation (especially during older times). It is a quite important natural resource that was either used for energy or sold.

Also, Finland is connected to the land and not so far off mainland Europe; Ireland, provided we exclude Britain from the picture, would have been quite isolated.

Finally, while Finnish is the main language, it is far from the only one spoken: Sweden is spoken as well, and most of the industrialization happened in the 1970s, after a sizeable number of Finnish citizens started traveling abroad for their studies.

megafan · 29-03-2013 3:08pm

robp wrote: »

but there was only one attempt at a colony in a colonial sense; the Norman/British one..

Bit more than an attempt.... Norman/British invasion/colonization also sponsored by Rome & the Vatican with their hierarchy which are still here!:mad:

robp · 30-03-2013 10:21am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Finland has, or at least used to have until the 1990s, one of the biggest forestry industries of the world, facilitated by the fact the territory is full of rivers and waterways to aid transportation (especially during older times). It is a quite important natural resource that was either used for energy or sold.

Also, Finland is connected to the land and not so far off mainland Europe; Ireland, provided we exclude Britain from the picture, would have been quite isolated.

Finally, while Finnish is the main language, it is far from the only one spoken: Sweden is spoken as well, and most of the industrialization happened in the 1970s, after a sizeable number of Finnish citizens started traveling abroad for their studies.

I am not dismissing the scale of Finish forestry but it is a primary industry just like farming. Yet, forestry only employs 3% of Finns in 2006 ,while farming employs about 4.6% of Irish as of 2010. Finland has some farming too but the numbers I presented still reveal that forestry is no more important to Finland than farming to Ireland.
Also Finland may border with Russia but its very far north and Ireland is infact slightly closer to Germany (my arbitrary core of Europe) than Finland.

megafan wrote: »

Bit more than an attempt.... Norman/British invasion/colonization also sponsored by Rome & the Vatican with their hierarchy which are still here!:mad:

Sponsored? are you kidding? By the forged papal bull Laudabiliter? Why do you single out catholic hierarchy, there is plenty of British royals in permanent residence in Ireland.

lcrcboy · 31-03-2013 1:39am

So many possibilities if the English had not entered into Ireland. Ill try list a few I think could have been possible:

1. More war on the island due to fighting over kingdoms and maybe the crown for a unified Ireland.

2. Potentially could have a monarchy today similar to the British

3. The Spanish or French could have successfully taken Ireland as strategic attacking point against Britain, meaning we could have ended up speaking French or Spanish.

4. May have fought with the allied forces during WW1 and 2 due to potentially less frosty relations with the British at that time.

5. May have ended up speaking Irish today rather than English.

the list could really go on with potential scenarios and outcomes.

Ash.J.Williams · 31-03-2013 2:08am

PhotogTom wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the idea of Brian Boru, and his son, surviving Clontarf. The idea of Ireland as a nation instead of a tribal society means that Ireland is cohesive enough to grow into a strong power on its own. Ireland colonizes England early and the Norman invasion never happens. Ireland becomes the dominant world power in the age of sail. Irish and Brehon Law dominate the world instead of English and crime and punishment.
Do I need to write the novel or does anyone know of one similar?!

if Brian boru survived we would have had a proper army which in itself would have given us stability? We were such a useless bunch when it came to organizing our defenses.

owenc · 27-05-2013 1:01pm

fryup wrote: »

Now i don't mean this to be a brit-bashing thread,

But i've often wonder what ireland would be like today and recent past if it was never colonised.

would....

* the country be economically wealthy?
* irish be the main language?
* the population be alot bigger? (no famine?)
* Dublin be the capital?
* we have such a large irish diaspora abroad? (no need to leave due to famine/eviction?)
* our relations with the UK be cosy/frosty?
* our national characteristics be different - more self confident & sophisticated? less begrudgery & underhand?

well what do you think....

I dont think Ireland would never have been colonised its too close to gb.

Lome · 27-05-2013 1:09pm

Hidalgo wrote: »

No guarantees that there would never have been a famine. Its probable that Ireland and England would have been trading partners due to the proximity. Potatoes would have been grown and therefore failed. However who knows what the response would have been if Ireland was ruled internally rather than externally;.
IMO the island would still have had violence after the time the first Normans came here due to continuous power struggles amongst Irish chieftans until at least one dominant clan held power

Impossible to say if we would be economically wealthy??

There was no famine. It was mass murder. There was more than enough food to feed tge whole country comfortably. The problem was that it was being exported out of the country by Britain.

Zebra3 · 28-05-2013 1:59am

Lome wrote: »

There was no famine. It was mass murder. There was more than enough food to feed tge whole country comfortably. The problem was that it was being exported out of the country by Britain.

Exactly, the word "famine" means shortage of food. This was not the case. Hence why the phrase "The Great Hunger" was always used.

If Ireland was never colonised?

Comments