In the 12th century the Normans invaded England and removed the saxons from power. A differant Norman king soon invaded Ireland as well. The new king of England wanted to assert his dominance in Ireland, so he invaded and took over. My what if is what if he had failed, and Ireland had remained independant from English rule. This lead me to another question, what Ireland, being so close to them, would be technologically equal with England. Would an Ireland that is Technologically equal, and for all intentions sake say, as united as England, be a threat to Britain. Would this stall British Colonialism or perhaps even halt it all together, having to stare down another Island nation with an equally impresive navy?
An Independant Ireland
- Thread starter IchBinDieKaiser
- Start date
OK, 1066 was 11th Century and the culture in England was not 'Saxon', it is now described as 'Anglo-Danish', or 'Anglo-Scandinavian' or even 'Early English'.
Secondly, it wasn't an invasion of Ireland. The first 'Normans' (or to be more exact 'Normo-Welsh' as the first to arrived were actually Marcher lords) in Ireland were actually invited in by an Irish lord who wanted a good core of fighters. It was a potential High King who used them to reclaim his lost lands. The 'Normans' then started taking land for themselves and then the King of England (Henry II) decided they were his subjects so their lands were his, as he feared a rival 'Norman' state to England. He also had support from the Pope who had some years earlier given him a Bull to go into Ireland and sort it out as the Pope was concerned at the corruption and abuses in the Irish Church. Another Pope then said to Henry "Ireland is yours" and most Irish Kings decided to say "yes, Henry is our overlord" as they feared him less than other potential 'overlords' of Ireland.
Anyway, a disunited Ireland (which is was) was never going to be a threat to England except as a base for exiles and rebels to launch attacks. If Irish lords hadn't been so stupid to go to England looking for mercenaries then the English king would most probably not stuck his nose in.
Secondly, it wasn't an invasion of Ireland. The first 'Normans' (or to be more exact 'Normo-Welsh' as the first to arrived were actually Marcher lords) in Ireland were actually invited in by an Irish lord who wanted a good core of fighters. It was a potential High King who used them to reclaim his lost lands. The 'Normans' then started taking land for themselves and then the King of England (Henry II) decided they were his subjects so their lands were his, as he feared a rival 'Norman' state to England. He also had support from the Pope who had some years earlier given him a Bull to go into Ireland and sort it out as the Pope was concerned at the corruption and abuses in the Irish Church. Another Pope then said to Henry "Ireland is yours" and most Irish Kings decided to say "yes, Henry is our overlord" as they feared him less than other potential 'overlords' of Ireland.
Anyway, a disunited Ireland (which is was) was never going to be a threat to England except as a base for exiles and rebels to launch attacks. If Irish lords hadn't been so stupid to go to England looking for mercenaries then the English king would most probably not stuck his nose in.
The Saxon Myth
As another correspondent has pointed out the invasion of England by a Norman French ruling class took place in the 11th rather than the 12th century. There is some dispute over how much of England was Saxon and how much Scandinavian but one thing is clear it was a Norman French ruling clase that went into Ireland and not the Saxon's. England was the only part of the UK that the Saxon's stole.
Assuming that Ireland wasn't invaded which is probably unlikely given the expansionist nature of the Scandinavians who had already had a few goes prior to 1066. Ireland is a smaller country population wise, the natural resources necessary for the industrial revolution were largely non existent so the industrial revolution would probably not have taken place apart from possibly a bit in the North East. There would have been no Scottish transplants in the 1600's to create a Northern problem.
Would Ireland have become involved in the Transatlantic slave trade? Would a navy have been devbeloped probably not on any scale to threaten to Royal Navy unless it was allied with the Spanish, French or Dutch which may have resulted in an English invasion. Colonies, maybe a few in North America but they may have lead to war with England or economic stranguilation like the Scottish colony in Darien
As another correspondent has pointed out the invasion of England by a Norman French ruling class took place in the 11th rather than the 12th century. There is some dispute over how much of England was Saxon and how much Scandinavian but one thing is clear it was a Norman French ruling clase that went into Ireland and not the Saxon's. England was the only part of the UK that the Saxon's stole.
Assuming that Ireland wasn't invaded which is probably unlikely given the expansionist nature of the Scandinavians who had already had a few goes prior to 1066. Ireland is a smaller country population wise, the natural resources necessary for the industrial revolution were largely non existent so the industrial revolution would probably not have taken place apart from possibly a bit in the North East. There would have been no Scottish transplants in the 1600's to create a Northern problem.
Would Ireland have become involved in the Transatlantic slave trade? Would a navy have been devbeloped probably not on any scale to threaten to Royal Navy unless it was allied with the Spanish, French or Dutch which may have resulted in an English invasion. Colonies, maybe a few in North America but they may have lead to war with England or economic stranguilation like the Scottish colony in Darien
What about independent Ireland in the XVII century?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=103639
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=103639
Yeah a large amount of Scandinavian had been thrown into the mix but England remained 'Anglo-Saxon' (which never means just Angles and Saxons)
The Saxons were in power though.
As to whether Ireland could threaten England (let alone Britain); no chance in hell on its own, it'd need to be (and likely would be) a puppet of a continental power.
Its only in the past few decades Ireland has become a rich country, prior to that its primary export has always been people. Its...just not a rich land. Poor in resources, horrible farming land, etc...
This is the 11th century we're on about so things are even worse- no potato, possibly not even a few staple old world crops/animals (I'm no expert on the spread of agriculture), the bulk of the island would still be one big swamp, etc...
Last edited:
History repeated
An independant Ireland can't match Britain for naval supremacy so it becomes allied with France. Following his relatively peaceful ejection fgrom the throne in England, James is supported by the King of France. Ireland being Frances ally gives him asylum and he raises an army. King Billy lands and the problems start from another direction
An independant Ireland can't match Britain for naval supremacy so it becomes allied with France. Following his relatively peaceful ejection fgrom the throne in England, James is supported by the King of France. Ireland being Frances ally gives him asylum and he raises an army. King Billy lands and the problems start from another direction
Yes, but the lack of Ireland has so many butterflies. For example, the Duke of York from the war of the Roses was the Lieutenant Governor of the English King at the Irish Parliament. Without this happening due to Ireland not being an English fief, there are major butterflies in the following war of the Roses and thus Henry VII and Henry VIII are potentialy butterflied away.
In short, I doubt James II would even exist in this TL.
Honestly, where do people get their info from!
every time theres a thread with ireland in it, the same old testicles comes out, ..... the land is too poor, theres no resources, its always been a agricultural nation, theres not enough people, its was too divided, and anyway if there was any industrial devlopment it would be in the north east!!!!
has anyone ever been there?, has anyone even done the slightest bit of research before they pan things that dont conform to the "england is the centre of the universe, always was and always will be"approach!
First yes there is poor land, but as a proportion of the whole island, its proportion of land that cant be very productive is better than wales and scotland ,same as englands, certinly better than most mediterian countries ... the carrying and yield capacity is wayyyyy better than med countries. some of the best agri land in europe is in meath, tipperary, cork, waterford, kildare, limerick... most of the country!
second .. resources ... yes it doesnt have big coal fields, or iron fields, it does have some, and most of these in shallow deposits, easy to get at it! It has plenty of gold and copper, lead, silver, it would have had timber coming out of its wazoo (the royal navy was built with no small amount of irish oak,) Also if we are talking before the 15th centuy and certinly in the pre medieval most iron used in the british isles was actually bog iron - ie sedimentay iron, leeched from surrounding soil into low lying boggy areas..... not very high grade but easier to get at and process with the tech of the day. So ireland had probably more than england!
third, its an agricultural nation ....... which country didnt have its economy based almost totally upon farming before 1800, or even 1830!
and when the thread is about a POD before 18th century why do people have to point out that it couldnt have started a industrial revolution, because it doesnt have resources.... see my point about resources. Also there are plenty, actually crap loads of old mills (food and cloth) ironworks, mines, quarries, kilns, etc dotted around the country (i can off hand think of .....8 industial sites from the late 18th to the mid 19th century that were within 15 miles of my home ...not counting those that i didnt know about, have been demolished, built over or converted )
As for the "fact " that any industry that did arise , would have done so in the north east, none of the resources that there are , are in the north east.. (ok some gold in tyrone, salt in antrim)... so why would the industry "have" to arise there?
4... the number of people..... plenty of people, especially if we take a leaf from polands agrument about voting rights in the EU, and number of euro mps each country gets. ie based on population is fine, especially if you figure what the population would have been now if most of them hadnt been killed off in the second world war! If there is a big enough POD then the several mass depopulations in elizibeathan times, cromwell, war between james and william, the famine, and the mass emigation since ( and a few others besides), all of which took large percentages of the pop - between 5 and 10%), probably wouldnt have happend, or not as bad, then there would have been plenty of people. not as many as england of course, but way more than scotland or wales, or holland or portugal (see my last paragraph)
last .. too divided....... yes it was divided but every little chieftan owed aligence to a bigger chief, etc, all the way up to a point where there was basically a half dozen at most "states" in around the 1000 ad. Inother word it had a feudal social structure, same as everywhere else. worse some countries at the time, better than most... for example prior to alfred and canute, how many statelets were there in england ?( not counting wales and scotland)
bottom line, though im talking about ireland specifically here, but there are plenty of small countrys with big aggrresive neighbours that have done alright , and all with less resources, holland... portugal, sweden, etc, etc, . Its actually an aberation of history that england got to the power and infulance it had, and that was based on a perfect storm of many different things, .. political structure, geography.... luck!... it is not a law of physics like what goes up must come down!
One of the points of the board is to discuss what ifs , not to just take what happened in the past and assume the same would happen again, except there would be a city with a differnt name, or a king with 2 mistresses intead of 5! . Sadly alot of the threads and timelines here are just slightly different versions of what happened in OTL.
use a bit of imagination people!
I'm Irish....
And FYI much of England in the time period in question wasn't great either but no one who knows anything and is speaking purely practically would claim Ireland is the better land (strictly going off climate, resources, etc... of course)
I'd agree Ireland isn't totally destined to be as poor as it was historically, most of that comes from its disunity and its insularness not the quality of the land, but competition for England? No chance (assuming we're not devestating England)
Proof?
This goes rather contrary to all I've heard.
Modern Irish agriculture is pretty good and very efficient but thats down to the technology used, not so much the natural quality of the land.
Iffy.
On a computer game it would look that way but in practice Ireland really wasn't feudal. It bore more of a resemblance to N.America and Africa than to mainstream Europe. It wasn't feudal, it was tribal.
One of the points of the board is to discuss what ifs , not to just take what happened in the past and assume the same would happen again, except there would be a city with a differnt name, or a king with 2 mistresses intead of 5! . Sadly alot of the threads and timelines here are just slightly different versions of what happened in OTL.
use a bit of imagination people!
But then you just have simple fiction not alternate history.
You have to look to what's likely and though history wasn't the only likely path or even the most likely certain parts of it are pretty set.
Had things gone differently Ireland could have become a respectable place but a British empire analogue based upon Dublin rather than London? Thats just silly.
The best way to get a richer, nicer Ireland IMO would have been more English meddling there not less. A 'independant Ireland' would have remained poor and been periodically invaded by England to make sure no threats hide there.
Leej,
for someone whos says their Irish (whats the definition , mine would be born there, and lived there , not some one with a irish granny), and FYI i do know better than you. Lived the first 18 years of my life on a small farm, in laois. that in the middle of the country, the boggy bit. and the small 1and a half acre paddock that my old man grew barley in year in and year out (not much for new fangled stuff like crop rotation) got 10 tonnes of it , thats..... 6 tones the acre. not bad for a patch of land with no crop rotation, no fertiliser, in relitivly poor (land speaking) part of the country. so that would be proof of an emperical nature, though not from a very large population, i'll admit. (btw the farm as a wole was more than 1.5 acres, incase you get picky!) do you want me to discuss the number of animals that the land could support?. technolgy raises agri yields, of course, but its the carry capacity of that land thats important for sustainabity. most irish farms wouldnt have seem a artifical fertilser before the mid seventies. your lack of knowlege of the country makes me dought your "im irish" statment. then again you could be from dublin..... in that case you have my sympathy
Your 3rd point about it being more closer to tribal than feudal, point sort of accepted, though saying its social structure was closer to africa than europe is a big streach. but again i say not much different to england pre Cannute, or most of scandanavia (nominal overloards, in practice every little local big guy did what he wanted),. Just didnt have right person at right time to knock heads and force and cojol a closer polity. again the lack of knowledge of the relevant history suggests a lack of credabilty on the "im irish bit". though of course you could have gone to school there in the last ten years or so and gone through the "new and impoved" educational system .... you have my sympathy
last point, didnt say ireland could be a british empire anologue, based in dublin. thats about as unlikely as that other nw european island country devloping a empire!! my point, and you avoided it in your responce, was that ireland could have risen higher than it did, not requireing science fiction, plenty of small poor countries did. Yeah once very large poulations for internal markets, and access to large amounts or iron and coal become important then its at a disadvantage.
any way got to work, hows the weather in svergistan (muslim enclave in gotenberg?)
last question, how do you do those multiple quotes?, can t seem to make it work!
for someone whos says their Irish (whats the definition , mine would be born there, and lived there , not some one with a irish granny), and FYI i do know better than you. Lived the first 18 years of my life on a small farm, in laois. that in the middle of the country, the boggy bit. and the small 1and a half acre paddock that my old man grew barley in year in and year out (not much for new fangled stuff like crop rotation) got 10 tonnes of it , thats..... 6 tones the acre. not bad for a patch of land with no crop rotation, no fertiliser, in relitivly poor (land speaking) part of the country. so that would be proof of an emperical nature, though not from a very large population, i'll admit. (btw the farm as a wole was more than 1.5 acres, incase you get picky!) do you want me to discuss the number of animals that the land could support?. technolgy raises agri yields, of course, but its the carry capacity of that land thats important for sustainabity. most irish farms wouldnt have seem a artifical fertilser before the mid seventies. your lack of knowlege of the country makes me dought your "im irish" statment. then again you could be from dublin..... in that case you have my sympathy
Your 3rd point about it being more closer to tribal than feudal, point sort of accepted, though saying its social structure was closer to africa than europe is a big streach. but again i say not much different to england pre Cannute, or most of scandanavia (nominal overloards, in practice every little local big guy did what he wanted),. Just didnt have right person at right time to knock heads and force and cojol a closer polity. again the lack of knowledge of the relevant history suggests a lack of credabilty on the "im irish bit". though of course you could have gone to school there in the last ten years or so and gone through the "new and impoved" educational system .... you have my sympathy
last point, didnt say ireland could be a british empire anologue, based in dublin. thats about as unlikely as that other nw european island country devloping a empire!! my point, and you avoided it in your responce, was that ireland could have risen higher than it did, not requireing science fiction, plenty of small poor countries did. Yeah once very large poulations for internal markets, and access to large amounts or iron and coal become important then its at a disadvantage.
any way got to work, hows the weather in svergistan (muslim enclave in gotenberg?)
last question, how do you do those multiple quotes?, can t seem to make it work!
No I'm not Irish-American, I've more than just a Irish nan. My dad's side of the family is mostly Irish (though he is 1/4 British) and though I didn't quite live there for 18 years I did spend a hefty amount of my childhood over there, primarily in Sligo. I've dual British/Irish nationality.
And for some weird reason that I've never figured out I've never been to Dublin. I keep meaning to fix that but meh, time and money.
The original post that I was saying couldn't happen was about building Ireland upon into a British competitor. Again I don't doubt that Ireland could rise higher than it did (not exactly difficult pre 19th century) its just never going to be a world beater.
And for some weird reason that I've never figured out I've never been to Dublin. I keep meaning to fix that but meh, time and money.
The original post that I was saying couldn't happen was about building Ireland upon into a British competitor. Again I don't doubt that Ireland could rise higher than it did (not exactly difficult pre 19th century) its just never going to be a world beater.
so that would make you ......37.5% irish!!
you have my sympathy
Once again, you have my sympathy
dont bother dude, its full of dubliners!
No problem mate, didnt mean to rag on you, Like i said, a lot of people on here just dress the past up in a new hat and say " volia ... toatally differnt!", and use that to back up their own predjidices. I think given the right conditions, person, whatever it could have been a compeditor, but not won out in the end, given the proximity of england and its greater resources, if it wasnt balkanised then it eventually would have got the upper hand
later dude