Can anyone else rule Ireland?
- Thread starter pa_dutch
- Start date
Pangur
Donor
To answer your question, the first dependency is whats happening in England. If we assume that there are no changes there then I would suggest that short term France or Spain. Outside chance of Denmark. However it would be short term and you may well get the reverse of what happened, an Irish rebellion support by England. Longer term the chances are small. If England wanted to grow and it was effectively hemmed in my say France on two sides one would have to go - namely Ireland. Another thing to consider that English rule of Ireland pre 1600 was more so in name than deed. There was no Irish nation as such more a case of lots of tribes that did speak the same language with no loyality to each other beyond what was expedient at any given time
Britain would probably have taken it during the growth of the British Empire. They were so close, they could sustain a war on Ireland better than anyone else could.
If France ruled it, there would be plenty of opportunities to take it. If Spain or Portugal had it, the British could seize it during their wars with Spain, or when both countries were occupied by Napoleon, though I doubt that, as they did have the same common enemy.
Maybe the British would even find an excuse to start a war with the goal of forcing a foreign power out of Ireland.
In the 19th century, at the height of the Empire, if anyone still held it, Britain could use economic pressure to force them out. Back then, you couldn't do any business or trade without Britain. It had the majority of the world's merchant fleet and the fact that it made half the world's finished products. And London, with the only global stock exchange, was the financial capital of the world. Every powerful nation owed something to Britain. If they refused you access to the stock exchange or banned trade, they could bankrupt you.
I don't think Britain would rest until Ireland was out of the grip of a foreign power. Simply put, Ireland under the control of any competing European power is like Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact and stationing Soviet troops along the border. No way in hell London would tolerate this.
If France ruled it, there would be plenty of opportunities to take it. If Spain or Portugal had it, the British could seize it during their wars with Spain, or when both countries were occupied by Napoleon, though I doubt that, as they did have the same common enemy.
Maybe the British would even find an excuse to start a war with the goal of forcing a foreign power out of Ireland.
In the 19th century, at the height of the Empire, if anyone still held it, Britain could use economic pressure to force them out. Back then, you couldn't do any business or trade without Britain. It had the majority of the world's merchant fleet and the fact that it made half the world's finished products. And London, with the only global stock exchange, was the financial capital of the world. Every powerful nation owed something to Britain. If they refused you access to the stock exchange or banned trade, they could bankrupt you.
I don't think Britain would rest until Ireland was out of the grip of a foreign power. Simply put, Ireland under the control of any competing European power is like Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact and stationing Soviet troops along the border. No way in hell London would tolerate this.
If the country that controlled Ireland was Catholic it would presumably use Irish forces to invade England after the split from Rome. Elizabethian England was under pressure from the Catholic Irish as it was, I can see a war of conquest by the English if Irland was used as a springboard for invasion.
If the country was ruled by a Protestant nation (such as Norway / Denmark) then I think things would have been more peacable, more along the lines of Englands relationship with the Neatherlands.
If the country was ruled by a Protestant nation (such as Norway / Denmark) then I think things would have been more peacable, more along the lines of Englands relationship with the Neatherlands.
Ireland is just too dangerous to England. This is the big reason England maintained such an interest in Ireland for so long; it would have suited England just fine had the entire place sunk into the sea or sailed off to the other side of the Atlantic.
To have someone else dominating Ireland you really need a very different situation in England- a divided and weak country, or a country also dominated by said someone else.
So in conclusion....England wins the hundred years war. Ireland becomes dominated by the French.
To have someone else dominating Ireland you really need a very different situation in England- a divided and weak country, or a country also dominated by said someone else.
So in conclusion....England wins the hundred years war. Ireland becomes dominated by the French.
If you could get Edward Bruce accepted as High King, and surviving, that might be a start - but that's a heck of a challenge.
Revolutionary Todyo
Banned
The French and Spanish were always trying to get their puppets installed, so any really deceisive victory by one of them, combined with whatever Irish rebels they're sponsoring also winning, will lead to either Madrid or Paris running the show, at least untill the next war.
Though to be honest, if the French/Spanish install a puppet who actually manages to unite Ireland somewhat, the British will have a hell of a time conquering them. They barely managed it when everyone on the island was at everyone elses throat, but if it's united, with decent training, equipment etc. and backed up by their Great Power sponsor then Britain will be involved in a fucking bloodbath.
Though to be honest, if the French/Spanish install a puppet who actually manages to unite Ireland somewhat, the British will have a hell of a time conquering them. They barely managed it when everyone on the island was at everyone elses throat, but if it's united, with decent training, equipment etc. and backed up by their Great Power sponsor then Britain will be involved in a fucking bloodbath.
However, if the English don't first get control of Ireland, wouldn't that butterfly away the later, OTL British dominance people are counting on to dislodge another power from there later?
If Spain had control there before Elizabeth's time (assuming the whole dynastic revolving door of the War of the Roses wasn't thrown far off whack by whatever leads up to Spain getting a toehold there first) they'd surely use it to crush her.
That's why the Tudors were so determined to get control there in the first place, and the Normans before them--the strategic danger was too damn obvious.
Also I have to think the English got some economic advantage out of controlling Ireland, even partially and loosely, and that doubtless fed English economic expansion in general; without Ireland as a first colony it isn't at all clear the English would have been able to launch all their other profitable ventures. And if they did anyway, having a hostile power based so near, right athwart major sea routes in fact, must surely have tended to spoke their wheels.
But I don't see how even the Spanish would have first got that foothold, unless the English were completely oblivious or distracted to a fatal extent.
The most likely scenario for the English not to have control of Ireland by 1600 would be if there were indeed a strong, unified, and rather determined kingdom defending the place; their odds would be much improved if they had the alliance of Scotland, which alone could threaten England directly by land. Considering the track record of the Normans in the early part of the second millennium--consolidating powerful kingdoms not just in England, but in Normandy itself first, in Sicily, in Palestine--it does seem odd that none of the waves of earlier Anglo-Norman invasions resulted in a strong centralized royal house asserting control over the whole island, or at least enough of it to offset any English foothold.
If there were a strong Irish-based ruling house, it is by no means clear they wouldn't unite with the English realm anyway, negotiating union on terms favorable to the respective ruling families--which may or may not work out to terms good for the respective populations, who would hardly be consulted in the matter! So Irish unification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an Ireland the English don't rule.
The Irish realm, assuming they don't go for voluntary unification with England, would then have to find some allies overseas since the respective economic potentials of the two islands are so strongly in Britain's favor--going head-to-head the English would win eventually, the Irish need some extra leverage. Scotland seems obvious; France also, especially as similar geopolitical algebra led to frequent alliances of Scotland to France, so bracketing England on a third side does not seem too unlikely. And with two partners in this triple alliance, any could seek to play one of its partners off against the other, which might break it up but might also stabilize it as over generations it becomes accepted that's how the game is played.
But this would hardly lead to Ireland belonging to a third power.
I conclude that probably isn't likely to happen; either Ireland falls to English power (assuming of course a unified England exists, if not it's a whole different game but then, the foreign power would probably focus on gobbling up the vulnerable and more profitable big island first) or it holds the English off by being unified and independent in its own right, with the help of powerful allies, most likely Scotland and/or France, as Spain is rather distant in practical terms until the rise of early modern sea power.
I've neglected the possibilities of Scandinavian alliances, perhaps blindly. They seem rather farther away than the other candidates I deemed more likely; perhaps if things were very different around the turn of the millennium and the Mediterranean-bordering nations were weakened compared to the Baltic ones then Danish or Norwegian dynasties would remain more relevant.
If we assume that Europe must at some point get divided by religious schism, it isn't entirely clear where Ireland lands in the upcoming religious roulette--clearly OTL it was opposition to English imperialism that drove the Irish to be quite doggedly Roman Catholic; if Ireland had its own regime it too might have gone schismatic from a Roman point of view, perhaps deliberately reviving long-buried Celtic "heresy." That would throw a monkey wrench into her alliances with powers to hold off the English.
It's also not inconceivable, though contrary to the OP question, that an Ireland that manages to hold itself separate from English power might at some late date seek a negotiated alliance or even union with England on her own terms; if both kingdoms went schismatic and found both their traditional continental alliances severed, they might at that point seek strength in union, at the very least mutual assurance no British Isles state would serve as a base for a third foreign power attacking another.
The one scenario I don't think is plausible is a continental power, nor even Scotland, dominating Ireland unilaterally the way the England/Britain did OTL, unless that third power was so strong it also ruled Britain as well. A Britain that can't dominate Ireland is one in a much weaker position than OTL, unless the two islands are in some sort of traditional cordial relationship with each other whereby each believes the other has more to lose than to gain by seeking conquest and therefore can concentrate on overseas adventures without losing too much energy to obsessive defensive measures. So arguments about overwhelming British economic power don't hold water; in such a timeline Britain either doesn't have such power, or has it as a de facto sharing of power with Ireland.
But if some continental third power was able to overcome both native Irish resistance and British interference with their schemes to seize power on the smaller island, they'd probably then be in a position to invade and take power over England too--or at least to take some strategic points on the island and neutralize what remains of England as a threat. England is much more clearly the bigger prize, so they'd press on gobbling up at least the English part of the big island, and if anything it might well be strategic, in these maneuvers, to build up Ireland as a nominally independent, de facto dependent, ally to play against England.
If Spain had control there before Elizabeth's time (assuming the whole dynastic revolving door of the War of the Roses wasn't thrown far off whack by whatever leads up to Spain getting a toehold there first) they'd surely use it to crush her.
That's why the Tudors were so determined to get control there in the first place, and the Normans before them--the strategic danger was too damn obvious.
Also I have to think the English got some economic advantage out of controlling Ireland, even partially and loosely, and that doubtless fed English economic expansion in general; without Ireland as a first colony it isn't at all clear the English would have been able to launch all their other profitable ventures. And if they did anyway, having a hostile power based so near, right athwart major sea routes in fact, must surely have tended to spoke their wheels.
But I don't see how even the Spanish would have first got that foothold, unless the English were completely oblivious or distracted to a fatal extent.
The most likely scenario for the English not to have control of Ireland by 1600 would be if there were indeed a strong, unified, and rather determined kingdom defending the place; their odds would be much improved if they had the alliance of Scotland, which alone could threaten England directly by land. Considering the track record of the Normans in the early part of the second millennium--consolidating powerful kingdoms not just in England, but in Normandy itself first, in Sicily, in Palestine--it does seem odd that none of the waves of earlier Anglo-Norman invasions resulted in a strong centralized royal house asserting control over the whole island, or at least enough of it to offset any English foothold.
If there were a strong Irish-based ruling house, it is by no means clear they wouldn't unite with the English realm anyway, negotiating union on terms favorable to the respective ruling families--which may or may not work out to terms good for the respective populations, who would hardly be consulted in the matter! So Irish unification is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an Ireland the English don't rule.
The Irish realm, assuming they don't go for voluntary unification with England, would then have to find some allies overseas since the respective economic potentials of the two islands are so strongly in Britain's favor--going head-to-head the English would win eventually, the Irish need some extra leverage. Scotland seems obvious; France also, especially as similar geopolitical algebra led to frequent alliances of Scotland to France, so bracketing England on a third side does not seem too unlikely. And with two partners in this triple alliance, any could seek to play one of its partners off against the other, which might break it up but might also stabilize it as over generations it becomes accepted that's how the game is played.
But this would hardly lead to Ireland belonging to a third power.
I conclude that probably isn't likely to happen; either Ireland falls to English power (assuming of course a unified England exists, if not it's a whole different game but then, the foreign power would probably focus on gobbling up the vulnerable and more profitable big island first) or it holds the English off by being unified and independent in its own right, with the help of powerful allies, most likely Scotland and/or France, as Spain is rather distant in practical terms until the rise of early modern sea power.
I've neglected the possibilities of Scandinavian alliances, perhaps blindly. They seem rather farther away than the other candidates I deemed more likely; perhaps if things were very different around the turn of the millennium and the Mediterranean-bordering nations were weakened compared to the Baltic ones then Danish or Norwegian dynasties would remain more relevant.
If we assume that Europe must at some point get divided by religious schism, it isn't entirely clear where Ireland lands in the upcoming religious roulette--clearly OTL it was opposition to English imperialism that drove the Irish to be quite doggedly Roman Catholic; if Ireland had its own regime it too might have gone schismatic from a Roman point of view, perhaps deliberately reviving long-buried Celtic "heresy." That would throw a monkey wrench into her alliances with powers to hold off the English.
It's also not inconceivable, though contrary to the OP question, that an Ireland that manages to hold itself separate from English power might at some late date seek a negotiated alliance or even union with England on her own terms; if both kingdoms went schismatic and found both their traditional continental alliances severed, they might at that point seek strength in union, at the very least mutual assurance no British Isles state would serve as a base for a third foreign power attacking another.
The one scenario I don't think is plausible is a continental power, nor even Scotland, dominating Ireland unilaterally the way the England/Britain did OTL, unless that third power was so strong it also ruled Britain as well. A Britain that can't dominate Ireland is one in a much weaker position than OTL, unless the two islands are in some sort of traditional cordial relationship with each other whereby each believes the other has more to lose than to gain by seeking conquest and therefore can concentrate on overseas adventures without losing too much energy to obsessive defensive measures. So arguments about overwhelming British economic power don't hold water; in such a timeline Britain either doesn't have such power, or has it as a de facto sharing of power with Ireland.
But if some continental third power was able to overcome both native Irish resistance and British interference with their schemes to seize power on the smaller island, they'd probably then be in a position to invade and take power over England too--or at least to take some strategic points on the island and neutralize what remains of England as a threat. England is much more clearly the bigger prize, so they'd press on gobbling up at least the English part of the big island, and if anything it might well be strategic, in these maneuvers, to build up Ireland as a nominally independent, de facto dependent, ally to play against England.
The easiest way would be for the Angevins or Plantagenets to gain the Crown of France. As has been pointed out elsewhere the centre of gravity of such a United Kingdom of France and England would inevitably be France and as the Angevins were Lord's of Ireland then Ireland would be ruled from Paris.
What about the Irish ruling Ireland?
Is that possible?
Counting Normans and such going native, there doesn't seem to have been much drawing the rivaling groups towards any more unity than the HRE, maybe less.
I wouldn't want to say this was inevitable, but it's kind of interesting.
Although a POD in a vaguely-Kasumigenx tone would be a second son (John being the first attempt) of the king of England being established as King of Ireland under the suzerainty of England, and that growing to mean something.
That wouldn't be quite what you're saying, but it might end up awfully close.
Snake Featherston
Banned
I don't know if it is possible, at least pre-potato. Ireland before the potato wasn't exactly the easiest land to live on, and if it's not that easy, that hardly fosters a domestic sense of unity when there's only so many resources to go around. It's easier for everyone to live in that context de-centralized, so that a smaller group of people gains more from a smaller group of resources. And then the neighbors next door with a full-fledged state sail in and start dropping the hammer.....
You'd need a POD in the Dark Ages. A lasting Norse kingdom in England, or at least in northern England, would mean that there might be less Anglo pressure on Ireland.
Alternatively, a later discovery of Iceland could mean that all the vagabonds and paupers who went there might go to Ireland instead and the land could eb more thoroughly Norsified. Perhaps it could become part of the Kingdom of Mann or some other Irish-Sea based Hebridean state.
Alternatively, a later discovery of Iceland could mean that all the vagabonds and paupers who went there might go to Ireland instead and the land could eb more thoroughly Norsified. Perhaps it could become part of the Kingdom of Mann or some other Irish-Sea based Hebridean state.
Revolutionary Todyo
Banned
Brian Boru did an alright job at uniting the island, but of course we never saw it come to fruition. We don't know if he intended to found a dynasty or make the position of High-King more powerful.
However, if he survived Clontarf, he'd have a few years left at most. He was a very old man according to the sources available, hence he was praying rather than fighting in the battle. If his aim was to form a dynasty, then expect the main problem for his successors to be keeping the other Clans from overthrowing them.
However, if he survived Clontarf, he'd have a few years left at most. He was a very old man according to the sources available, hence he was praying rather than fighting in the battle. If his aim was to form a dynasty, then expect the main problem for his successors to be keeping the other Clans from overthrowing them.
How about the USA? The USA has a large and influential Irish-American population and it is not impossible to imagine some alternate timelines in which peacefully or otherwise, US influence in Ireland increases to the point that Eire is annexed and admitted to the US as a state. Technically, this would not quite be the same as the USA "ruling" Eire, but rather Ireland becoming part of the USA.
Careful! that's exactly the scenario I joined AH to promote!
The contempt was withering.
It was very much a long shot; the thread was a challenge to come up with a US colony in Europe before 1914, presumably so the USA would be drawn into WWI from the get-go. People seemed to be liking Heligoland when I last looked into that thread!
But yeah, the US had a special interest in Ireland around 1900. Not an unambiguous one, and it's just about impossible to imagine a scenario where the British would prefer it come under Yankee protection (I suggested, as a Commonwealth like Puerto Rico is today); if the revolutionary situation on the island got so bad they had to admit they couldn't hold the place they'd probably much prefer the current situation, with it a fully independent country (kingdom, republic, whatever, from the British point of view).
I had it be a TR negotiated thing; US freedom of religion finessing the whole confessional brawl problem and keeping the island unified.
Regarding a Norse or Angevin/Plantagenet regime--well, I don't see it as a direct address of the OP if Ireland winds up under the same rule as England does, even if that's a capital based in a third country. A partial at best. That's why I downplayed the cases where perhaps Ireland is indeed used as a base to subdue England from. A Nordic Britain that also rules Ireland will still be Ireland under the same rule as Britain; a Nordic kingdom that holds Ireland but fails to attempt to rule Britain would be a different matter.
So that's two paths toward the OP challenge, and my favored one is also a partial, as it depends on Ireland having standing as a unified realm that can defend itself so it's not under any foreign flag, just allied to them. Vice versa for Ireland to be independent of Britain any time before the 20th century they'd need strong allies to hold off the British with.
So the alternative is, someone acquires Ireland as a base to attack Britain from, and then fails to succeed in that attack but manages to avoid losing Ireland in the retaliation.
The tough thing about that is, Britain is right there, more or less between Ireland and any other European power. A Nordic realm might have an edge if they have Scotland in their quiver or at their side too, then the English can't try to block a sea route in. (Assuming both sides have navies, or at least the Nordics do).
And so, with Ireland at point-blank range like that, it's a pretty delicate balance of power to maintain for many generations, to have England strong enough to resist a great-power backed invasion from Ireland, yet not strong enough to take Ireland from that third power.
The Irish being fanatically loyal to the not-England side would help stabilize the situation.
But that leads us again toward an independent Ireland that is merely allied to some strong third power, not incorporated in it.
I had yet another wacky scenario in response to another wacky challenge--someone wanted a Muslim, but English-speaking, North America. I came up with some scheme whereby a strong Iberian Islamic state conquers Britain via an alliance with Ireland--the latter is very much a client state of the Muslim power, but nominally independent (and Celtic Christian). The Irish are as it were front men for the Iberian power, who industrialize Britain as a colony and indenture/enslave lots of English people and ship them overseas to the American colonies, where they Islamify as a stratagem for getting along and getting ahead, but remain English-speakers.
Wacky challenges, wacky answers.
The basic economic weakness of Ireland is probably a very good explanation for why it has been such poor soil for medieval nation-building. Still think it's odd a bunch of Normans couldn't pull it off though. They'd do that with nominal subservience to the English crown, but if they managed it I can easily see them breaking away on some pretext or other, probably dynastic.
How exactly are they going to do that? That's the problem.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but the "how" is hard. Building a strong kingdom is much harder than it looks (for anyone, the Irish are just one of OTL's failures here).