Was colonising Ireland worth it?

riffmongous wrote: »

Well the point is completely flawed, it doesnt make sense to use the current state of Irish architecture to make a guess at what some alternate history would be like, as the current state of Irish architecture is not independent of our actual history.

You misunderstand me. I am not using the current state of Irish architecture to make a guess at what some alternate history would be like. We were discussing classical buildings and architecture through a colonial era and I outlined my views on the comparative development of architecture and ‘Big Houses’ in this former colony and England. The point I was answering was one made by Reekwind

Reekwind wrote: »

And who's to say that Ireland couldn't have developed her own style or imported it ...? Arguably Ireland would be better provisioned with classical buildings ...... if more wealth had remained in the country...

and also touched on by Manach.

Manach wrote: »

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.

There is no argument that Ireland could have developed its economy to a far greater extent had trade not been curtailed by writs from English Kings/Parliaments, but even the Navigation Acts in the latter half of the 1600’s did not subsequently curtail the exchange of ideas – political, religious and cultural.
For centuries smuggling and people trade went on with several places on the Continent - in addition to Manach’s mention of Galway one could add Youghal / Nantes and Dingle / Santiago /Oporto as other examples of places where there was a strong connection with Mainland Europe.
Those routes were open to travel officially or unofficially, the officer class Catholic Irish served in foreign armies in Spain, France, Austria, Poland and several other smaller states and did return home; similarly the Irish Colleges (St. Omer, Paris, Rome, Louvain, Salamanca, etc.) had their intake of Irish students who also returned.
The ability to travel, albeit less restrictive, was the same in England, where it was confined to the upper classes; they were the only ones who travelled and largely to the same places as the Irish. That position pertained up to about 50 years ago.

Simply put, regardless of being colonised, we had in Ireland Irish people who were exposed to foreign travel and design education / opportunities. An 'own-brand' Irish architectural design failed for two reasons. Firstly, too few opened their eyes, learned design and took opportunities (exceptions being Irish silverwork and lace (Galway, Kenmare and Youghal – all seaports).
Secondly, as I said earlier, we did not have the money and peaceful environment in which to execute larger scale projects. Those are the reasons why we do not have any ‘Irish’ architecture, bar a few round towers and some arguably 'Irish' Hiberno-Roman churches.

Then, in the decades after Independence we got the money, freedom from civil strife but we did not spend it on design, we spent it on bling and dross. Even the stone-faced cottages much loved by an Taisce and Planners have no place in Irish vernacular architecture. (If stone was used it was lime mortared and whitewashed.)

Architecturally Ireland is almost dead and the best of the young ones have left to work overseas. Generally the average Irish person would not know good design unless it was based on price (dear=good). Look at the crappy replacement windows used in every main street and suburb in Ireland. Look at the shopfronts. Look at the disorder in signage. Look at the visual impact effect the Dublin Corpo would have created with road traffic signs (until mercifully stopped by ministerial order.) That shows you the cultural aesthetic of the average Irish person. And explains why we still do not have anything remotely like style.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Was it worth it?

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

That's about it. It was done originally at a time when invading your neighbours to extend your kingdom was the done thing.

After that, every "invasion" as it were was not done on a whim, there was a reason (not claiming it to be good or bad). The most decisive I guess was Cromwell, who didn't just get out of bed the wrong side and take it out on Ireland, he was, as he saw it, protecting the new republic of England from royalist forces and took it upon himself to ensure that threat never arose again.

dubhthach wrote: »

We weren't doing too bad on that even back in the Iron age . As for bridges there's the prime example of the Clonmacnoise wooden bridge from the 12th century.

.....

ehhhh.......it was joke