The "First" Irish people

oflynno · 19-09-2010 12:33am #1

i have been doing a bit of reading of myths and folklores on irish history

The Fir Bolg were in charge of Ireland with the Formorians knocking around the place too.Along came Na Tuatha De Dannan and they had a battle and defeated the Fir Bolg,and took over the country(more or less)

is this right so far?

and now for the questions
Vague history says na tuath came from North,was that the viking area of the world or where?

accoring to Michael O Muirathuirtigh,the television GAA commentator,it was 1172 BC when the Fir Bolg and Na Tuatha had a hurling match all day and a big battle after,sounds cool

is there-an irish history for dummies-book around the place for me to get into

i had a look at the kids history books and they had rough timelines of how ireland developed,is there book around like that?

brianthebard · 19-09-2010 2:08am

The Fir Bolg, Formorians, etc are part of the mythology of pre-Christian Ireland, Standish O'Grady updated a lot of that stuff for a modern readership at the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century. I enjoyed his books and they are a good starting point for that sort of thing. After that yeah there is an Irish history for dummies if you want a very vague outline of what the countries history is.

oflynno · 19-09-2010 10:13am

cool,i will get one of his books from the library and have a gander.

is there any hard factual,scientific book about ireland in the year dot?

PatsytheNazi · 19-09-2010 10:39am

Interesting topic. Stuff about the Fir Bolg etc is more folk mythology than concrete history AFAIK. Here's quite a good article form wiki, ( I know not always the most reliable of sources but this seems quite good), that is worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland#cite_note-1

According to it, the first evidence of hunter-gatherers settling in Ireland is around 8000 BC. Humans tended to travel and spread thoughout Europe sticking to the waterways, whether it be down rivers or sticking to the coast, as they had an easy accessible source of food, fish. Unsurprisingly it is thought that the earliest inhabitants of Ireland were seafarers who depended for much of their livelihood upon the sea. It's reckoned that from 8000 - 4000 BC that the population of Ireland was probably never more than a few thousand.

And here is a detailed thesis on the subject. Quite long but informative.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19839438/Driscoll-K-2006-The-early-prehistory-in-the-west-of-Ireland-Investigations-into-the-social-archaeology-of-the-Mesolithic-west-of-the-Shannon-Ire

brianthebard · 19-09-2010 2:01pm

oflynno wrote: »

cool,i will get one of his books from the library and have a gander.

is there any hard factual,scientific book about ireland in the year dot?

Any book written on pre-Christian Ireland would be based on archaeological evidence. There would be quite a few books on that period, but the problem with such pieces is there is a high percentage of guess work involved. They are still informative and interesting though, just not definitive.

fontanalis · 19-09-2010 7:04pm

There's a quick summary of the groups you mentioned and a few more in the link below. I think with the arrival of christianity some of it was used to link Irish mythology to biblical stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Invasions
patys article looks interesting, I must give it a read. I think the oldest found settlement in Ireland is Mount Sandel.

brianthebard · 19-09-2010 7:16pm

The Milesians are the last tribe to arrive I think and they are either a Christian invention or were later interpreted as the coming of Christianity, its been a long time since I read much about the myths so its pretty hazy...

fontanalis · 22-09-2010 4:39pm

Isn't Balor associated with Tory Island? Is it not strange that an isolated spot got mentioned in such a prominent story?

purplepanda · 29-09-2010 7:05pm

The Fir Bolg are historically part of the Belgae invasion & settlement of Ireland from around 400BC onwards.

Read Norman Mongan's The Menapia Quest which outlines the period & peoples involved & their settlement in Ireland & Britain.

http://www.normanmongan.com/books/menapia-quest/

"This is the odyssey of the Menapii, the oldest traceable Celtic tribe in Europe.
They are the only tribe for whom historical evidence has survived both in Ireland and the Continent.
The Menapii, a Gaulish maritime tribe inhabiting the dense forests of the Rhine estuary on the North Sea coast, were first mentioned by Julius Caesar in 57 BC. During the Gallic War he singled them out as the only tribe never to surrender to his legions. As part of the Belgae, the Belgic tribal confederation, they had for centuries valiantly resisted encroaching Germanic tribes.
Celtic seafarers and traders, their ships had sailed the Irish Sea for centuries BC, establishing trading colonies on the Irish, Scottish,Welsh and Manx coasts, as confirmed by ancient and modern placenames. They worshipped Manannan mac Lir, their Celtic sea-god; a renown navigator, merchant and magician.

The Menapii are the only known Celtic tribe specifically named on Ptolemy’s 150 AD map of Ireland, where they located their first colony- Menapia – on the Leinster coast circa 216 BC.
"

fontanalis · 29-09-2010 8:09pm

That seems to tie in with this authors take on things. Has anyone else heard of him?
http://www.handofhistory.com/

Johnmb · 29-09-2010 8:17pm

purplepanda wrote: »

The Fir Bolg are historically part of the Belgae invasion & settlement of Ireland from around 400BC onwards.

Read Norman Mongan's The Menapia Quest which outlines the period & peoples involved & their settlement in Ireland & Britain.

http://www.normanmongan.com/books/menapia-quest/

"This is the odyssey of the Menapii, the oldest traceable Celtic tribe in Europe.
They are the only tribe for whom historical evidence has survived both in Ireland and the Continent.
The Menapii, a Gaulish maritime tribe inhabiting the dense forests of the Rhine estuary on the North Sea coast, were first mentioned by Julius Caesar in 57 BC. During the Gallic War he singled them out as the only tribe never to surrender to his legions. As part of the Belgae, the Belgic tribal confederation, they had for centuries valiantly resisted encroaching Germanic tribes.
Celtic seafarers and traders, their ships had sailed the Irish Sea for centuries BC, establishing trading colonies on the Irish, Scottish,Welsh and Manx coasts, as confirmed by ancient and modern placenames. They worshipped Manannan mac Lir, their Celtic sea-god; a renown navigator, merchant and magician.

The Menapii are the only known Celtic tribe specifically named on Ptolemy’s 150 AD map of Ireland, where they located their first colony- Menapia – on the Leinster coast circa 216 BC.
"

Except for the fact that it is all pretty much made up. There is no evidence of any Belgae (or any other peoples) invasion/settlement of Ireland in or around 400BC.

fontanalis · 29-09-2010 8:29pm

I read somewhere about possible links between Southern Wales and Wexford. Might explain that accent!
Is there evidence of Celtic languages being spoken around the North Sea coast.

purplepanda · 29-09-2010 11:09pm

Johnmb wrote: »

Except for the fact that it is all pretty much made up. There is no evidence of any Belgae (or any other peoples) invasion/settlement of Ireland in or around 400BC.

Just like early Christian Irish Monks did then? We're all descended from Noah & the Pharaoh's according to them:rolleyes:

I tend to believe that we are more likely to be connected to similar peoples in Britain & the NW coasts of Europe. Just as what happened from after the fall of the Roman Empire onwards so no difference there.

Or did we just appear from nowhere?

brianthebard · 30-09-2010 12:00am

No obviously people didn't just appear but the idea of a set of staged invasions, peaceful or otherwise is no longer supported by history and archeaology. Nor is the idea that the Irish people are Celtic, or that the language is.

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 12:20am

brianthebard wrote: »

No obviously people didn't just appear but the idea of a set of staged invasions, peaceful or otherwise is no longer supported by history and archeaology. Nor is the idea that the Irish people are Celtic, or that the language is.

The language is Celtic - this was one of the reasons why a Celtic invasion myth was falsely supported. The Celtic culture and language came - but no people.

brianthebard · 30-09-2010 1:12am

Celtic in what sense? Do you have a link out of interest?

junder · 30-09-2010 1:30am

Anybody hear of the cruthin?

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 1:34am

brianthebard wrote: »

Celtic in what sense? Do you have a link out of interest?

Celtic in the sense of a linguistic classification - I don't have a link to any papers - a bit tired now but will search around tomorrow - but here is a link to NUI Galway Celtic Studies where you can see that the Irish language is considered to be Celtic in origin.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/faculties_departments/celtic_studies/

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 2:06am

junder wrote: »

Anybody hear of the cruthin?

I read they are a recent creation, used almost as a justification for the Ulster plantation.

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 2:09am

brianthebard wrote: »

Celtic in what sense? Do you have a link out of interest?

A bit of info below. The idea is the language and art may have arrived with trading and years ago ti was assumed it arrived through mass invasion. The term caught on as a way to distinguish celtic areas as non English also.
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/920/5920.xml&style

brianthebard · 30-09-2010 2:23am

MarchDub wrote: »

Celtic in the sense of a linguistic classification - I don't have a link to any papers - a bit tired now but will search around tomorrow - but here is a link to NUI Galway Celtic Studies where you can see that the Irish language is considered to be Celtic in origin.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/faculties_departments/celtic_studies/

Ok a classification as in a label applied by linguists, rather than something related to the people that spoke it?

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 10:34am

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok a classification as in a label applied by linguists, rather than something related to the people that spoke it?

I'm not sure what you mean? But if you mean was the language spoken by a single, homogeneous people then no, the language [and culture of religion and laws] was found to have travelled somehow and was not necessarily spoken by one ethnic homogeneous group.

The linguistic classification was first defined in the 1700s and a link was made between the 'Celtic' languages of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Brittany etc. and there was a recognised relationship between what they called P Celtic and Q Celtic to describe a linguistic spit that had occurred. This has been further refined to Brythonic and Goidelic - Irish belonging to the latter.

When this linguistic classification was first made it was assumed that the language had travelled because people - the so called Celts- had travelled and the textual mythology of invasions to Ireland was supported by this false theory. Now with archeological evidence not supporting that theory of migration it has to be concluded that the language and culture spread without the movement of any people.

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 12:03pm

Just to add - Dáibhí Ó Cróinín is a great source for this linguistic discussion. In his book A New History of Ireland Vol I he outlines the track of the Celtic languages.

mikhail · 30-09-2010 3:19pm

I'm dubious - how does a language completely displace the local language without at least a segment of the population being native speakers? Are there other examples of such a thing happening?

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 3:26pm

mikhail wrote: »

I'm dubious - how does a language completely displace the local language without at least a segment of the population being native speakers? Are there other examples of such a thing happening?

You made me smile. There is much heated discussion in academia about all this. Many think as you do - archeological evidence be damned, there had to be some people who came. The jury is out on it.

Ash.J.Williams · 30-09-2010 3:27pm

So many exagerated stories and myths but not much evidence of anything ...really frustrates me..

purplepanda · 30-09-2010 4:27pm

brianthebard wrote: »

No obviously people didn't just appear but the idea of a set of staged invasions, peaceful or otherwise is no longer supported by history and archeaology. Nor is the idea that the Irish people are Celtic, or that the language is.

And where are these sources you quote & do you maintain the same stance as regards Britain before the arrival of the Roman Empire?

As for the language not being Celtic are you seriously suggesting that Gaelic in it's various forms is not a Celtic language, what about Welsh or Breton & what did the Continental Gauls, Belgae & Armocians on the NW European coast speak?

riffmongous · 30-09-2010 4:36pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I read somewhere about possible links between Southern Wales and Wexford. Might explain that accent!
Is there evidence of Celtic languages being spoken around the North Sea coast.

Ptolemys map of Ireland puts the Brigantes in Wexford in the second century AD and they were pretty well known in England, the Cartimandua story.

Dublin_Gunner · 30-09-2010 4:42pm

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Irish-History-Sean-Duffy/dp/0717130932

I bought that book a few years back, and found it very interesting. Lots of good maps and diagrams of where different tribes where, whereabouts different peoples came into Ireland from, and where they settled etc

Goes right up to modern-ish times too.

mikhail · 30-09-2010 4:43pm

MarchDub wrote: »

You made me smile. There is much heated discussion in academia about all this. Many think as you do - archeological evidence be damned, there had to be some people who came. The jury is out on it.

I'm just curious. Archaeology can be tricky - one often has to interpolate a lot from scraps. In the absence of an example of a people voluntarily abandoning their native tongue for a trade language without significant immigration (even in this era of mass education and media, the Dutch and the Swedish retain their own languages in spite of extremely high levels of English literacy), the claim that the native Irish did so is a big one. I doubt archaeologists are arguing in a vacuum; do you know of a neat summary of the argument anywhere?

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 4:48pm

mikhail wrote: »

I'm dubious - how does a language completely displace the local language without at least a segment of the population being native speakers? Are there other examples of such a thing happening?

The Norman/English invasion more or less achieved it in Ireland. There is no trace of Pictish in Scotland either.
Below is a list of extinct European languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_Europe

riffmongous · 30-09-2010 4:49pm

mikhail wrote: »

I'm just curious. Archaeology can be tricky - one often has to interpolate a lot from scraps. In the absence of an example of a people voluntarily abandoning their native tongue for a trade language without significant immigration (even in this era of mass education and media, the Dutch and the Swedish retain their own languages in spite of extremely high levels of English literacy), the claim that the native Irish did so is a big one. I doubt archaeologists are arguing in a vacuum; do you know of a neat summary of the argument anywhere?

What about current Gaeilge? In the last 200 hundred years its usage has declined dramatically

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 4:51pm

MarchDub wrote: »

You made me smile. There is much heated discussion in academia about all this. Many think as you do - archeological evidence be damned, there had to be some people who came. The jury is out on it.

Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?

mikhail · 30-09-2010 4:54pm

fontanalis wrote: »

The Norman/English invasion more or less achieved it in Ireland. There is no trace of Pictish in Scotland either.

The Normans spoke French, and invaded in the 12th century. The Irish retained their language until at least the mid 19th century before it gave way to English, a language taught in schools and used in the civil service of the government imposed by the ruling nation. Are you implying that some Celts ran Ireland, teaching their language in a reasonably structured way and held power for centuries, but left no archaeological evidence of an invasion?

riffmongous · 30-09-2010 4:55pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?

Well it was a time of massed immigration, if you trust Caesars account of things there were huge tribes constantly on the move, does anyone know if there is archaeological evidence of these movements?

purplepanda · 30-09-2010 4:55pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Ptolemys map of Ireland puts the Brigantes in Wexford in the second century AD and they were pretty well known in England, the Cartimandua story.

The Barony of Bargy in coastal south Wexford takes it's name from the Brigantes.

Dublin_Gunner · 30-09-2010 4:57pm

fontanalis wrote: »

The Norman/English invasion more or less achieved it in Ireland. There is no trace of Pictish in Scotland either.
Below is a list of extinct European languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_Europe

Due to local inhabitants being forcefully made NOT speak it.

Contrary to Mikhails post, the countries he mentioned were never forced to abandon their language. Having a high level of literacy of one language doe not eradicate the native tongue.

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 5:03pm

mikhail wrote: »

The Normans spoke French, and invaded in the 12th century. The Irish retained their language until at least the mid 19th century before it gave way to English, a language taught in schools and used in the civil service of the government imposed by the ruling nation. Are you implying that some Celts ran Ireland, teaching their language in a reasonably structured way and held power for centuries, but left no archaeological evidence of an invasion?

Just showing in recent times how a language could die out.
Gaelic as it is now is probably very different than it was 1,000 years ago; Gaelic of the 12th century was probably different than of the 1st century. Who knows maybe Gaelic incorporated some of the old language (whatever it was) into it. If trading increased perhaps adoption of a new langauge may have been necessary. On the other side of the spectrum it seems the Basque langauge held on for a very long time.
Personally I think there was some movement of people (ruling elite), and we don't know what the population of Ireland was at the time, do we have an idea of how the land was ruled, was the country even unified?

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 5:22pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Why would a massive group of people go the whole way to Ireland, apart form arceological evidence that would have to be found in ireland, would it have to be found the whole way along the invasion route?

Oh I wasn't talking about myself - I accept the complete lack of archeological evidence for migration. There was no 'Celtic' invasion of peoples into Ireland.

And there is no evidence that the so called speakers of 'Celtic' languages were ever a homogeneous ethnic group anyway.

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 5:27pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Oh I wasn't talking about myself - I accept the complete lack of archeological evidence for migration. There was no 'Celtic' invasion of peoples into Ireland.

And there is no evidence that the so called speakers of 'Celtic' languages were ever a homogeneous ethnic group anyway.

Sorry, wasn't really directed at you.
Anyway isn't a major danger in all of this is that we are applying modern labels to an ancient group/groups of people we don't know an awful lot about?

PatsytheNazi · 30-09-2010 5:31pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Just showing in recent times how a language could die out.
Gaelic as it is now is probably very different than it was 1,000 years ago; Gaelic of the 12th century was probably different than of the 1st century. Who knows maybe Gaelic incorporated some of the old language (whatever it was) into it. If trading increased perhaps adoption of a new langauge may have been necessary. On the other side of the spectrum it seems the Basque langauge held on for a very long time.
Personally I think there was some movement of people (ruling elite), and we don't know what the population of Ireland was at the time, do we have an idea of how the land was ruled, was the country even unified?

Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

riffmongous · 30-09-2010 5:44pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

If you read the Annals of the Four Masters it seems pretty clear that Ireland was in so sense united in pre-Norman times and weren't they written by Franciscan monks?

Johnmb · 30-09-2010 5:44pm

People are talking here as if a single pre-Celtic language was spoken in Ireland and then replaced over a short period of time by Irish. That is not the case, or at least, there is no evidence of it happening. It is assumed that the Celtic language arrived around 400BC simply because that is about the time we date the earliest signs of La Tene influence on artifacts here. The language could have started to arrive long before, or long after. There is no evidence that it replaced the original language(s) over a short period of time either. In fact, I recall there being some circumstantial evidence that a non- Q-Celtic language was still being spoken up until at least the 5th century AD. And finally, there is no evidence to show how many languages were spoken prior to the arrival of the Celtic language. There may have been as many languages as there were Tuatha! That would help explain why the Celtic language ended up being the main one, not only was it needed to communicate with trade partners in Europe, but also to communicate with other Tuatha. As the Tuatha became closer to the extent that the idea of a High King of Ireland began being seriously discussed, the need to speak the same language would have become more important, even to those further down the food chain from the leaders of the various kin groups.

Johnmb · 30-09-2010 5:48pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

There was never a true High King of Ireland. The closest anyone came was to be proclaimed a High King with opposition. Maybe having power over 4 of the 5 provinces that existed at the time. It was heading towards it, at the time of the Norman invasion there were probably only about 6-8 Tuatha that were competing for the title.

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 5:49pm

Ireland was unified culturally prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion. There was one language, one set of laws, one religion. There was no feudal system - so in that sense it differed from other parts of Europe.

Patsy - I agree with you re the propaganda about the condition that Ireland was in prior to the invasion from Henry II. In fact, the propaganda began with the invasion as Giraldus Cambrensis was the first one to write about this - he came with the invaders with the intention of justifying the invasion and putting it on record that Ireland was barbarous, pagan and disorganised.

It is the work of Giraldus - who right from the start was in disagreement/dispute with the Irish sources - that many use to discredit pre Norman Ireland.

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 5:52pm

Johnmb wrote: »

There was never a true High King of Ireland. The closest anyone came was to be proclaimed a High King with opposition. Maybe having power over 4 of the 5 provinces that existed at the time. It was heading towards it, at the time of the Norman invasion there were probably only about 6-8 Tuatha that were competing for the title.

You are wrong about the "High King with Opposition" that was a designation under Brehon Law to denote a dispute but it was not the norm.

Brian Boru was proclaimed High King and even Emperor of the Irish.

Johnmb · 30-09-2010 5:56pm

MarchDub wrote: »

You are wrong about the "High King with Opposition" that was a designation under Brehon Law to denote a dispute but it was not the norm.

Brian Boru was proclaimed High King and even Emperor of the Irish.

He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.

fontanalis · 30-09-2010 6:02pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Unionist historians have portrayed pre Norman Ireland as island of tribal chaos to try and undermine the Irish sense of nationalhood ( and this coming from the people who invent Scots Ulster 'language' and some even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !! ), i.e so therefore it took the invaders to put order on the muck savage Irish. It suits their supremacist mindset. And of course this propaganda has been echoed by the usual suspects, Harris, Edwards etc down in the Gombeen state.

fontanalis, never hear of the Brehon Laws, Ard Ri etc ? ( BTW Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair / Rory O'Connor was the last High King of Ireland 1166–1198 )

I wasn't suggesting the place was like Mad Max 2 but just not a unified monolithic block around the iron age.
I can't remember where I read it but some author suggested stories like The Tain may be based around massive inter provincial/kingdom rivalry.
Pedant alert, was it Roderick O'Connor not Rory O'Connor?

MarchDub · 30-09-2010 6:06pm

Johnmb wrote: »

He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.

He was proclaimed that at Armagh - Brehon law oversaw the rulers. It was against Brehon law to take by force the territory of another - so if there was a dispute the Brehon in charge would declare 'the opposition' and it would be thus recorded.

But yes you are right, Irish rulers - no matter what title - did not have the power that their continental equivalents had. And there was no primogenitor - so that made for a weaker role also. This difference was one of the major cultural differences when the English invaded. The English King did not easily control the whole country. There was no system of cowering down - and paying taxes - to a central ruler in Ireland the way the English did.

PatsytheNazi · 30-09-2010 6:29pm

Johnmb wrote: »

He proclaimed himself that. He never conquered the northern Ui Neill, nor the Ulaid if I remember correctly. There was no such official designation of High King with opposition, that was just what those writing the various annals called them in order to show that 1) the king in question didn't actually control everyone, 2) they didn't feel they had to go overboard in their sucking up to him.

It wasn't just Ireland where ancient Kings ruled with "opposition" i.e. other country's had a rebelious baron or lord in a distant part of the kingdom. For example England's King Edward the Confessor feared the powerful nobleman Harold Godwinson Earl of Wessex ( later Harold II of England ) and requested his wife's cousin William the Conqueror to send Knights to act as his sort of private guard against Harold. This was later used by Willaim the Conqueror as an excuse for claiming the English throne claiming he was promised it by Edward.

Johnmb · 30-09-2010 6:39pm

MarchDub wrote: »

He was proclaimed that at Armagh - Brehon law oversaw the rulers. It was against Brehon law to take by force the territory of another - so if there was a dispute the Brehon in charge would declare 'the opposition' and it would be thus recorded.

Where exactly do you get this information from? There is no single "Brehon law", there are a number of law texts that are grouped together under the term Brehon law. The highest rank of King generally mentioned in any of them is that of the provincial High King. While a High Kingship of Ireland was mentioned quite a bit in the myths and legends, it is not mentioned as even a theoretical position in most of the law texts.

The "First" Irish people

Comments