AHC: An Earlier Conquest of Ireland

The challenge for this thread is to have England conquer Ireland earlier than our timeline's Tudor conquest of Ireland. During one of the semi-regular Protestant Ireland threads, a firm crowd favourite alongside its sister Keep Ireland In The UK threads, MikeStone8 made the very good point that by the time the Tudor conquest of Ireland was completed by James I the Counter-Reformation was in full swing with the Jesuits able to argue the Protestants on equal terms. So I'm looking for some way for England to reassert central authority by 1520 so as to give them some time before Henry VIII introduces the Acts of Supremacy in 1534.

Looking at things two of the major impediments to the English monarchs going off adventuring in Ireland are the Hundred Years' War that ran from 1337 to 1453 and then the follow-on War of the Roses that started just a couple of years later in 1455 and went on until 1487 which effectively blocks out a century and a half. Taking the creation of the Lordship of Ireland and the Synod of Cashel as a logical starting point that leaves between 1172 and 1337 as the first window of opportunity and between 1487 and 1520 as our second. That's roughly 165 years and 35 years respectively to work with. The earlier window does seem to be easier since it's larger and IIRC the English controlled more of Ireland before losing authority over a lot of it except the Pale. I'm still trying to nail down some decent possibilities so any suggestions would be appreciated. In the later window the Yorkist rebellion with Lambert Simnel seems like a good opportunity, perhaps have Henry VII be much less forgiving of Earl of Kildare and decide that Ireland has been causing enough trouble to put a final stop to it. Anyone got any good ideas?
 
'Lambert Simnel' victorious at Stoke and Henry VII dying in battle? If Kildare is firmly tied to the British crown, by default most of Ireland is going to go with him.
 
Dunno, it might work but could just as easily see the last of central authority in the Pale being effectively destroyed. Ideally I'd prefer for England to take over Ireland with the fewest changes being made outside of there. Not a simple task I know.
 
I've read that Richard, Duke of York (the one who gave battle in vain) was very popular as Governer of Ireland, due to his somewhat Laissez Faire approach to the whole thing. The Irish appreciated that he let them do pretty much what they wanted. This is why he could find friends there in 1459, and possibly why his supposed Grandson found supporters later.

Maybe if Edward IV loses, or even dies at Mortimer's Cross, then Henry VI (read Margaret of Anjou and Somerset) might decide to come down hard on Ireland in revenge for disloyalty once they've secured London again? I don't know how good their chances are of succeeding, and the whole scheme would need to wait until Warwick and Norfolk are subdued...
 
I think the big problem is that, as in OTL, campaigning in Ireland on a large scale - large enough to make an effective conquest - would be ruinously expensive and take a fearful cost in lives as the Nine Years War showed. It is possible but it is hard to see why any English monarch would make such an effort before the prospect of Spain (and later France) landing troops there became a factor.

Honestly I think the OTL Tudor conquest was probably the earliest occasion a modern style conquest could have happened; Ireland was sufficently far from the centre of power that powerful barons like the Earls of Kildare are a given. Your best bet would be to reverse the question and have an Irish based faction gain power in England.
 
I think the big problem is that, as in OTL, campaigning in Ireland on a large scale - large enough to make an effective conquest - would be ruinously expensive and take a fearful cost in lives as the Nine Years War showed. It is possible but it is hard to see why any English monarch would make such an effort before the prospect of Spain (and later France) landing troops there became a factor.
That's a very salient point. Campaigns in France and the Low Countries are worth it - at one point Gascony brought the Crown five times more than the whole of England did. Ireland, on the other hand, may (may) cost less than subduing France, but it'll net a tiny fraction of the revenue returned...
 
That's a very salient point. Campaigns in France and the Low Countries are worth it - at one point Gascony brought the Crown five times more than the whole of England did. Ireland, on the other hand, may (may) cost less than subduing France, but it'll net a tiny fraction of the revenue returned...

Well, not as good as Gascony but Ireland could net a good profit, especially as an advanced base to the Americas with routes free from French vessels as opposed to the Channel.
There are also quite fertile lands, mines, timber... and quite a large population. I don't have numbers for the XVIth century but pre-famine, so first half of the XIXth century, Ireland was about six million people, when France was less than 30 millions.

So you have a tax base of rich peasants too
 
I think the big problem is that, as in OTL, campaigning in Ireland on a large scale - large enough to make an effective conquest - would be ruinously expensive and take a fearful cost in lives as the Nine Years War showed.


It is one of our lesser known consolations at home that, despite our ass being eventually handed to us at Kinsale, Elizabeth's Irish wars cost her more than all her more storied campaigns combined :D
 
hmmm, perhaps the Maid is born male creating a potential union between Scotland and Norway.
Not to be outtitled by a perceived vassal Edward I gets a crown (re-)recognised for Ireland.
Come the death of Richard II the Mortimers claim Ireland and this passes down to the Yorks.
The added Irish support for this claim results in a York victory in the WotR.

Of course it's less of a conquest but the added battles needed in Ireland to secure each side may count
 
Why not just have the original Norman Invasion of Ireland be more successful in the late 12th century? More native chiefs are defeated and even more land ends up in the hands of Anglo-Norman Barons with Munster and Ulster both falling meaning there is no large, native polity left. As in OTL Henry II decides that having his erstwhile subjects set up an independent Kingdom next door isn't desirable and launches a second invasion that is even more successful than OTL and brings the new Hiberno-Norman aristocracy firmly to heel and more cross-channel Lordships are created with Henry II rewarding loyal English Barons with secondary estates. As in OTL you'll see some drift away from central authority by those Norman's who are solely based in Ireland but have Henry II's successors be more successful than OTL in maintaining their authority. Then when England evolves a Parliament out of the earlier Curia Regis make sure there is no separate Irish Parliament. Couple that with placing the Irish Catholic Church and it's archbishops under the supervision of the Archbishop of Canterbury and you would probably see a gradual Anglicisation both culturally and linguistically. There will be always be some cultural gap between Kent and Galway but there is no real reason why Cork and London shouldn't be culturally closer than London and the Brecons.
 
Why not just have the original Norman Invasion of Ireland be more successful in the late 12th century? More native chiefs are defeated and even more land ends up in the hands of Anglo-Norman Barons with Munster and Ulster both falling meaning there is no large, native polity left.
That's seeming like one of the best options at the moment. Since IIRC a fair number of the Normans were coming from Wales my general idea was to change things slightly from our timeline with them managing to seize the whole of Leinster and Munster and some of the fringes of Connacht and Ulster with Henry II's follow on invasion helps consolidate things. That still allows for some fighting to keep things interesting plus have future events run not too far from our timeline.


As in OTL Henry II decides that having his erstwhile subjects set up an independent Kingdom next door isn't desirable and launches a second invasion that is even more successful than OTL and brings the new Hiberno-Norman aristocracy firmly to heel and more cross-channel Lordships are created with Henry II rewarding loyal English Barons with secondary estates. As in OTL you'll see some drift away from central authority by those Norman's who are solely based in Ireland but have Henry II's successors be more successful than OTL in maintaining their authority.
Eminently sensible. Make sure that say at half of the local lords or more have larger holdings in England which gives them more to lose than gain if they start getting ideas about being too independent. Also means they're likely to help squash any of Ireland based lords that cause trouble as well.


Then when England evolves a Parliament out of the earlier Curia Regis make sure there is no separate Irish Parliament. Couple that with placing the Irish Catholic Church and it's archbishops under the supervision of the Archbishop of Canterbury and you would probably see a gradual Anglicisation both culturally and linguistically. There will be always be some cultural gap between Kent and Galway but there is no real reason why Cork and London shouldn't be culturally closer than London and the Brecons.
Could see this happening, since it's still a separate kingdom though probably keep the trappings of that such as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if only as titles to give out as favours. Putting the church under the Archbishop of Canterbury I definitely like, should find favour with the Papacy since IIRC they weren't all that keen on the Irish church viewing it as a bit too unorthodox and independent. Also nicely strengthens the bonds between the two countries.


So very roughly Munster and Leinster are solidly conquered in the invasion along with some fringes of Connacht and Ulster. Henry II comes along a couple of years later to stamp his central authority on things, the remaining Irish lords recognise him as Lord of Ireland and the local Irish church is put under the Archbishop of Canterbury and slowly brought into line with the rest of the Catholic Church. Things go backwards and forwards for the next few hundred years but the Norman holdings are secure and avoiding the worst disasters of our timeline instead thrive and the lords and peasants manage to avoid going 'native' again. Henry VIII still has his argument with the Pope which leads to England going Protestant, over time the south and east go Protestant fairly heavily with Connacht becoming a mix somewhat similar to what the north of England was like with Ulster remaining the most resistant and troublesome. Some minor plantations are attempted to help boost control of the small holdings around the Belfast/Carrickfergus area, if and when the Union of the Crowns takes place under James VI and I he decides to settle the matter once and for all by instituting the Plantation of Ulster. The end result is an Ireland that's majority Protestant with a large Catholic minority based mainly around the Connacht region and which is ruled directly from London even though it's technically an independent kingdom, likely seeing a United Kingdom of England and Ireland occurring at some point in the early to mid-1600s. Thoughts? I know I'm eschewing butterflies and hewing to our timeline but that's mostly for the sake of convenience until I can do a bit more reading.
 
Could see this happening, since it's still a separate kingdom though probably keep the trappings of that such as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if only as titles to give out as favours. Putting the church under the Archbishop of Canterbury I definitely like, should find favour with the Papacy since IIRC they weren't all that keen on the Irish church viewing it as a bit too unorthodox and independent. Also nicely strengthens the bonds between the two countries.


So very roughly Munster and Leinster are solidly conquered in the invasion along with some fringes of Connacht and Ulster. Henry II comes along a couple of years later to stamp his central authority on things, the remaining Irish lords recognise him as Lord of Ireland and the local Irish church is put under the Archbishop of Canterbury and slowly brought into line with the rest of the Catholic Church. Things go backwards and forwards for the next few hundred years but the Norman holdings are secure and avoiding the worst disasters of our timeline instead thrive and the lords and peasants manage to avoid going 'native' again. Henry VIII still has his argument with the Pope which leads to England going Protestant, over time the south and east go Protestant fairly heavily with Connacht becoming a mix somewhat similar to what the north of England was like with Ulster remaining the most resistant and troublesome. Some minor plantations are attempted to help boost control of the small holdings around the Belfast/Carrickfergus area, if and when the Union of the Crowns takes place under James VI and I he decides to settle the matter once and for all by instituting the Plantation of Ulster. The end result is an Ireland that's majority Protestant with a large Catholic minority based mainly around the Connacht region and which is ruled directly from London even though it's technically an independent kingdom, likely seeing a United Kingdom of England and Ireland occurring at some point in the early to mid-1600s. Thoughts? I know I'm eschewing butterflies and hewing to our timeline but that's mostly for the sake of convenience until I can do a bit more reading.

Why have it as a separate Kingdom at all? There was no Kingdom of Wales created by Edward I. Otherwise I think the best you can hope for is for the South-East to be similar to the North of England in terms of the strength of central authority, the distances and nature of the conquest force that. William the Conqueror spread his new nobles new estates around the entire country and made sure that no single county was under the control of a single noble. The exception was the north where you had Northumberland and the Percy's and Westmoreland and the Nevilles. That was because of the need to have a strong local Earl able to hold off the Scots until help came from the South. For slightly different reasons Henry II is going to have to accept the Butlers and FitzGeralds as a necessary evil. If he doesn't he will weaken the new Norman aristocracy enough to enable a Celtic revival. As for Western Ireland bringing that firmly under central control is going to have to wait for the early modern era like the Highlands of Scotland. It's simple too far away and too poor.
 
Why have it as a separate Kingdom at all? There was no Kingdom of Wales created by Edward I.

Henry II himself actually did want to turn Ireland into a seperate Kingdom under John IOTL.

I don't really understand reason why the Norman nobles wouldn't go native however, short of outright exterminating the Irish nobility. Intermarriage happened from the beginning - in fact actually before Henry II himself became seriously involved in the proceedings.

Likewise, surely absentee landlordism on a massive scale - which is what granting land to English barons effectively means - is hardly going to increase the spread of Anglo-Norman culture? Ireland might actually end up more Gaelic not less; if there is no incentive for land hungry adventurers to go there you are not going to see immigration.
 
Last edited:
Top