A Free Ireland: A TL where Brian Boru lives.

Although many historians dispute the age of Brian Boru, how he lead his men and when he died, it is safe to say that the Battle of Clontarf was surely his finest moment. It was during this battle that Boru secured his claim as Emperor of the Irish and extended his rule over the entire island. At the time, the King of Leinster, Mael Morda mac Murchada, was rebelling against the King's rule with the help of his kinsman, Sigtrygg the Second, King of Dublin. Sigtrygg's forces under the command of Manx Viking Commanders met with Boru's forces at Clontarf, north of Dublin city on Good Friday, 1014.

The battle was long, although no historian holds much note of what occurred during the battle, what is assured is that Brian Boru was the victor and the Dublin and Leinster armies were decimated. After the battle, Brian Boru ordered his men to march on Dublin, where Sigtrygg and his garrison awaited. Legend holds that at the sight of Boru's army, Sigtrygg boarded a ship and fled to his allies in Orkney. Although it is unkown when Sigtrygg left Ireland, it is known that he must have before he returned in 1018, after the death of Emperor Brian.

After capturing Dublin, Brian Boru became the unchallenged Emperor of the Irish, his throne recognized by the Papal representatives in Dublin. Boru then set about uniting his new Kingdom. This resulted in the War of Unity in which he set off to force the King's to resign their thrones and become lesser leaders whose fealty was to the King. After Boru's army beheaded Mael Morda in Dublin, the other royal houses resigned to the House of O'Brien. It was the beginning of a new age in Ireland, when Brian Boru died in 1017, leaving his son Murchada the throne of Ireland.

Just as I put on the Flogging Molly

Brian Boru TL, I'm very interested. Will see where this goes.

This looks quite excellent so far. A very early sort of 'surrender and regrant' going on here, cool.

This is my first timeline and I want to make sure I get it all down. So It may take some time for me to flesh it out.

Enigmajones said:

Although many historians dispute the age of Brian Boru, how he lead his men and when he died, it is safe to say that the Battle of Clontarf was surely his finest moment. It was during this battle that Boru secured his claim as Emperor of the Irish and extended his rule over the entire island. At the time, the King of Leinster, Mael Morda mac Murchada, was rebelling against the King's rule with the help of his kinsman, Sigtrygg the Second, King of Dublin. Sigtrygg's forces under the command of Manx Viking Commanders met with Boru's forces at Clontarf, north of Dublin city on Good Friday, 1014.
The battle was long, although no historian holds much note of what occurred during the battle, what is assured is that Brian Boru was the victor and the Dublin and Leinster armies were decimated. After the battle, Brian Boru ordered his men to march on Dublin, where Sigtrygg and his garrison awaited. Legend holds that at the sight of Boru's army, Sigtrygg boarded a ship and fled to his allies in Orkney. Although it is unkown when Sigtrygg left Ireland, it is known that he must have before he returned in 1018, after the death of Emperor Brian.
After capturing Dublin, Brian Boru became the unchallenged Emperor of the Irish, his throne recognized by the Papal representatives in Dublin. Boru then set about uniting his new Kingdom. This resulted in the War of Unity in which he set off to force the King's to resign their thrones and become lesser leaders whose fealty was to the King. After Boru's army beheaded Mael Morda in Dublin, the other royal houses resigned to the House of O'Brien. It was the beginning of a new age in Ireland, when Brian Boru died in 1017, leaving his son Murchada the throne of Ireland.

Click to expand...

Considering that Brian Boru was about 73 when he died, how much longer do you want him to live? A couple of years more? Or do you want hime to be one of the undead like Strom Thurmond?

Enigmajones said:

It was the beginning of a new age in Ireland, when Brian Boru died in 1017, leaving his son Murchada the throne of Ireland.

Click to expand...

Tomac said:

Considering that Brian Boru was about 73 when he died, how much longer do you want him to live? A couple of years more? Or do you want hime to be one of the undead like Strom Thurmond?

Click to expand...

Three more years don't seem unreasonable. He'd be old, but he was already old.

The reign of Morchada: 1017-1035

After his retreat from Ireland in 1014, Sigtrygg went off in search of allies to help him reclaim the Kingdom of Dublin. He was rebuffed by Canute of England, ignored by the Kings of Deheubarth, Gwent, Gwynedd, Alba and turned down by the Manx. Finally, Sigrtrygg hired an army of mercenaries and set out from Orkney.

On June 4th, 1017, Sigtrygg landed his forces near Dublin on the Isle of the Howth and met a force compiled by Murchada from Munster and Connacht. Murchada played a defensive battle as the Orkneymen launched charge after charge against his men. Finally, in the early hours of the next day, Sigtrygg lead his forces in a last ditch effort to break the Irish armies resolve. However, Sigtrygg was brought down by the blade of an Irish soldier, in the more popular versions of the story, it was King Murchada himself, where as in the less told stories it was a warrior from Connacht, Munster or even Leinster. Despite the unkown killer, it is agreed that after Sigtrygg's death the mercenaries lost resolve and began to retreat to their ships, eager to plunder Dublin at a more oppurtune location.

Instead, in an action known as the Orkney Land Grants of 1017, King Murchada offered the Orkneymen land in Leinster, his most rebellious province, in hopes of establishing a loyal merchant class. The majority of the men took the offer and settled in Leinster, whilst Ireland grew as a location for mercantilism, with ships from England, Alba, France and even Scandanavia becoming common place in Luimneach, Corcaigh, Port Laigre and Dublin.

Throughout Murchada's reign, he was known as a model king. Among his acheivments was the establishment of the Royal Library on the banks of the Liffey, the construction of Castle O'Brien in Dublin and the dedication of hundred of acres to new abbey's. When Murchada died in 1035, his eldest son, Brian the Second took the throne, aged 35.

Interesting.

Do you propose to alter the histories of neighbouring countries?
Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to maintain effective independence as Nation States emerge around Ireland.

With 1066 and all that approaching any chance of an 'Alliance' emerging to counter the external threats?
This could provide a foundation on which future co-operation and mutual respect replace exploitation and mistrust.

Either way, intrigued and subscribed.

Falkenburg

Falkenburg said:

Interesting.

Do you propose to alter the histories of neighbouring countries?
Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to maintain effective independence as Nation States emerge around Ireland.

With 1066 and all that approaching any chance of an 'Alliance' emerging to counter the external threats?
This could provide a foundation on which future co-operation and mutual respect replace exploitation and mistrust.

Either way, intrigued and subscribed.

Falkenburg

Click to expand...

The history of Great Britain is greatly altered by this. Dont you worry about that.

Nice update.

Might I suggest Harold Hardrada succeeds instead of William the Bastard, possibly with the help of Irish scouts who report that the Saxon Army is actually armed and that the vikings should do likewise upon meeting them?

Errnge said:

Nice update.

Might I suggest Harold Hardrada succeeds instead of William the Bastard, possibly with the help of Irish scouts who report that the Saxon Army is actually armed and that the vikings should do likewise upon meeting them?

Click to expand...

The Irish are likely to stay out of the conflict. Independent Ireland will affect Great Britains history, but I think the Norman invasion still happens in Britain.

Enigmajones said:

The Irish are likely to stay out of the conflict. Independent Ireland will affect Great Britains history, but I think the Norman invasion still happens in Britain.

Click to expand...

It didn't - it happened in England.

There had been a Norman presence in Scotland since at least 1057 when MacBeth gave sanctuary to some Norman families who had fallen out with the English king. Yes, there were Normans in England in the time of Edward the Confessor, but they weren't invaders.

Chookie said:

It didn't - it happened in England.

There had been a Norman presence in Scotland since at least 1057 when MacBeth gave sanctuary to some Norman families who had fallen out with the English king. Yes, there were Normans in England in the time of Edward the Confessor, but they weren't invaders.

Click to expand...

Well I meant that William the Conqueror will become the King of England. And you're quite right its England, not Britain.

Enigmajones said:

Well I meant that William the Conqueror will become the King of England. And you're quite right its England, not Britain.

Click to expand...

Not a good idea. The Normans have a well-deserved reputation for extensive exploitation and flagrant disrespect for their neighbors: a reputation which is only borne about Britain's later acts. You'd have to keep either a strong Saxon England allied to Ireland or a very weak Norman Britain to keep the Empire of Ireland powerful and independent. Just sayin'.

Good TL, by the way.

ElCaudillo said:

Not a good idea. The Normans have a well-deserved reputation for extensive exploitation and flagrant disrespect for their neighbors: a reputation which is only borne about Britain's later acts. You'd have to keep either a strong Saxon England allied to Ireland or a very weak Norman Britain to keep the Empire of Ireland powerful and independent. Just sayin'.

Good TL, by the way.

Click to expand...

Thanks and the Norman-Irish Wars are different then OTL.

ElCaudillo said:

Not a good idea. The Normans have a well-deserved reputation for extensive exploitation and flagrant disrespect for their neighbors: a reputation which is only borne about Britain's later acts. You'd have to keep either a strong Saxon England allied to Ireland or a very weak Norman Britain to keep the Empire of Ireland powerful and independent. Just sayin'.

Good TL, by the way.

Click to expand...

Not sure a strong Saxon England is necessarily better in the long term, and I say this as a Saxon.

That being said, if Ireland is united and secure, meddling with it by anyone - Norman or Saxon - is a lot harder. This gets less true over time, but it might also be seen as less of what OTL England saw OTL Ireland as being, so it is no more subject to exploitation than Scotland, or less.

...take that as you will.

Elfwine said:

Not sure a strong Saxon England is necessarily better in the long term, and I say this as a Saxon.

That being said, if Ireland is united and secure, meddling with it by anyone - Norman or Saxon - is a lot harder. This gets less true over time, but it might also be seen as less of what OTL England saw OTL Ireland as being, so it is no more subject to exploitation than Scotland, or less.

...take that as you will.

Click to expand...

Er, I wouldn't take the hypothetical phrase "well, it's only being exploited as much as Scotland was!" as a good sign in any world....

ElCaudillo said:

Er, I wouldn't take the hypothetical phrase "well, it's only being exploited as much as Scotland was!" as a good sign in any world....

Click to expand...

Its all in how you look at it, and I'm twisted enough to say "It would be treated like Scotland." as if that was a good thing and mean more like "Well, Scotland was only moderately screwed over, so that's better than how the English treated Ireland OTL."

So, yeah. Would you (OTL) rather be Scottish in 1840 or Irish, given English rule?

On the scale of Horribly Fucked Over (1: Least, 5: Most.):

1: Cornwall
2: Brittany.
3: Wales.
4: Scotland.
5: Ireland.

Elfwine said:

So, yeah. Would you rather be Scottish in 1840 or Irish, given English rule?

Click to expand...

Eh, fair point. But I think we can both agree that it'd be better to be Irish in the late 1850s than be Indian in the late 1850s.

ElCaudillo said:

Eh, fair point. But I think we can both agree that it'd be better to be Irish in the late 1850s than be Indian in the late 1850s.

Click to expand...

Probably.

As in, I can't think of any reason we wouldn't.

Would be better for both to be free of English rule, I think.