AHC: England leaves Ireland (mostly) alone

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
No European country left its neighbors alone for many centuries, so English invasions or interventions in Ireland may occur, but you satisfy the challenge if Ireland is under the English crown for no more than a century (ie not any longer than Portugal was under Spain).

Double your points if in this ATL England is still a world spanning empire or still the cradle of industrial revolution.
 
The problem is, its like saying "Have no war between France and Spain". History shows neighbours always have a go at each other at some time or another.

Inevitably the 2 nations will clash if Ireland remains Catholic and England goes Protestant.

Keeping England Catholic will go a little way to keeping the peace, but even then either an Irish King or an English King will launch an invasion some time or another. It really depends on who has the bigger population/fighting force at the time (usually falls in the favour of England).

A union similar to England-Scotland could work, but only if both nations are Catholic/Protestant together. Plus if that happens that 'United Kingdom' will either have to remain, or when the crowns split again you could have a lot of nasty wars over who rules who.
 
You need a weak England for this to happen. The power balance is so far out of Ireland's favor and there's a long history of England intervening in Ireland that religious changes alone won't be enough.
 
You need a weak England for this to happen. The power balance is so far out of Ireland's favor and there's a long history of England intervening in Ireland that religious changes alone won't be enough.

Good point. Greater conflict/cooperation between Wales and Scotland could affect things. Also having a stronger nationalist streak in the Cornish? Maybe some major event that sees a more divided England so more time is spent putting the country back together...

Problem is a divided England then invites Irish interference which gives a good reason to invade if the country manages to pull itself together (or 1 of the factions decides to extend their influence and gains the capacity to do so).
 
Is there potential for an Irish branch of the royal family to ascend the throne of England (or vice versa)? It will likely mean very close ties between the two so it may not satisfy the OP, but a gradual and peaceful march to formal union is obviously far superior to what happened OTL.
 
Is there potential for an Irish branch of the royal family to ascend the throne of England (or vice versa)? It will likely mean very close ties between the two so it may not satisfy the OP, but a gradual and peaceful march to formal union is obviously far superior to what happened OTL.

Unlikely, even if they shared the same religion (because there's no way a Protestant Nation would accept a Catholic King etc.) you'd just end up things going Portuguese Restoration War way.

Spain and Portugal for a short period had a union of crowns, but when Spain tried to displace the Portuguese nobility the Portuguese rebelled and established a new dynasty.

You'd see something similar with Ireland-England, with the Irish rebelling. Problem is, in the Portuguese restoration war, the Spanish performed terribly and the Portuguese had support (at different times) from France and England.

Ireland would be unlikely to get support from another Great Power (none of them would benefit from a stronger Ireland whereas a Portugal to keep Spain in line is different. Being a separate island it doesn't share a physical border with England so isn't as valuable. Might as well just invade England outright. Scotland was more valuable for that reason, and was why France and Scotland held such close ties).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is, its like saying "Have no war between France and Spain". History shows neighbours always have a go at each other at some time or another.

nope it isn't. I started off saying: "No European country left its neighbors alone for many centuries, so English invasions or interventions in Ireland may occur"


It seems to me your statement and my first sentence are in violent agreement

So my challenge is simply that instead regardless of short-term events, they are not under English rule for multiple centuries.

Smaller weaker countries in Europe that lived next door to larger powerful countries have still managed to avoid centuries long occupations by them. For instance, Spain didn't get to hold down Portugal for much more than fifty years. The Swedes only held down the Norwegians for less than a century. The Swiss and Dutch were able to avoid any lasting Habsburg or French domination.
 
Ireland doesn't have the fact the rest of Europe would mind England taking it the way Spain and France had their ambitions for certain little countries viewed poorly by the other powers, nor does it have the highly defensible terrain the Netherlands benefits from (also a benefit for Switzerland).

I'm not saying English rule is inevitable, but the situation of the Netherlands or Portugal isn't a good comparison.

Although on the other hand, England might not even bother. There's less to gain from taking Ireland, and if England's rulers are absorbed in other affairs, you might get what kept Ireland more independent than not in the Middle Ages.

No English king will place Eire over Gascony.
 
Maybe in a TL where Scotland conquers Ireland the English might see themselves as liberators of the Irish
 
What we need is an Irish attempt to Normanize in the same way Scotland did from the late 11th century onwards.

It is worth remembering that the first Norman families in Ireland were adventures, and so if they had been defeated Ireland would have been allowed to develop in peace for a lot longer. The Welsh being a more pressing concern for the English monarchy, as were restless barons.

If Richard de Clare had been thrawted in his attempts to form a Norman state in Ireland, the English crown would probably not intervened. How long this gives Ireland is another question altogether.
 
What we need is an Irish attempt to Normanize in the same way Scotland did from the late 11th century onwards.

What is this "Ireland" you speak of in this period? There is no real united polity (over the whole island) in the sense Scotland was a united polity.

That's going to be a major problem in Irish wars against England.
 
What is this "Ireland" you speak of in this period? There is no real united polity (over the whole island) in the sense Scotland was a united polity.

That's going to be a major problem in Irish wars against England.

I was referring to the many different principlaities, kingships, abbeys etc that consisted the patch-work of polities that was the Isle of Ireland.

I don't think you need the whole Ireland to unite, just a loss enough alliance at first (such as in Wales before the northern principality of Gwynned gained hegemony in the 13th century.)

Of course the degree that Scotland was a united polity at the turn of the twelfth century is another question altogether.
 
I was referring to the many different principlaities, kingships, abbeys etc that consisted the patch-work of polities that was the Isle of Ireland.

The problem though is that as such a patchwork, even if one set of rulers of one area tries to "Normanize", that doesn't improve the chances of the rest of the island.
 
The problem though is that as such a patchwork, even if one set of rulers of one area tries to "Normanize", that doesn't improve the chances of the rest of the island.

Surely that is an improvement from OTL though?

I'm afraid that it is getting late here so I shall log off. I shall think more about this question tomorrow.:)
 
No European country left its neighbors alone for many centuries, so English invasions or interventions in Ireland may occur, but you satisfy the challenge if Ireland is under the English crown for no more than a century (ie not any longer than Portugal was under Spain).

Double your points if in this ATL England is still a world spanning empire or still the cradle of industrial revolution.


Hmmm...Harold Godwinson loses The Battle of Stanford Bridge, but the damage is enough to force the invading Harald Hardrada to rest awhile. William in Normandy attacks the South Coast of England on schedule or a bit before. The two invading armies battle inconclusively but eventually two Englands are born: one in the South, another in the North. Eventually the situation on the island of Great Britain stabilises with three, four or even five countries. Ireland still gets occasionally invaded, but a Balkanized Britain doesn't develop the critical mass necessary to invest and dominate it.

Does that work?
 
Hmmm...Harold Godwinson loses The Battle of Stanford Bridge, but the damage is enough to force the invading Harald Hardrada to rest awhile. William in Normandy attacks the South Coast of England on schedule or a bit before. The two invading armies battle inconclusively but eventually two Englands are born: one in the South, another in the North. Eventually the situation on the island of Great Britain stabilises with three, four or even five countries. Ireland still gets occasionally invaded, but a Balkanized Britain doesn't develop the critical mass necessary to invest and dominate it.

Does that work?

Pretty good.

If you want to throw even more meat towards the Irish, have Brian Ború and his family not die at the Battle of Clontarf, which unifies Ireland for at least a time under a strong dynasty. A stronger Ireland at the time can place more energy into expanding it's influence in Scotland, so instead of the previously mentioned Normanisation in Scotland, you get Gaelicisation as the Scots turn towards the Irish as a power based instead of the 3/4/5 English and Welsh states on the go. In fact that would result in "Alba" rather than "Scotland".
 
Pretty good.

If you want to throw even more meat towards the Irish, have Brian Ború and his family not die at the Battle of Clontarf, which unifies Ireland for at least a time under a strong dynasty. A stronger Ireland at the time can place more energy into expanding it's influence in Scotland, so instead of the previously mentioned Normanisation in Scotland, you get Gaelicisation as the Scots turn towards the Irish as a power based instead of the 3/4/5 English and Welsh states on the go. In fact that would result in "Alba" rather than "Scotland".

Brian Boru was seventy-three as of Contarf (based on the Encylopedia Brittanica), and he did have at least one surviving son - Donnchadh mac Briain, historically king of Munster.

Which is to say, I don't see why Brian living is such a surefire path to anything.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I think even if the High Kingship passes to one of Brian's sons that the whole issue of "Ireland's (High) Kings have a lot on their plate dealing with Ireland." is going to significantly limit the amount of influence they can project into Scotland.

Meanwhile, what do they have to offer from the standpoint of why anyone would look to Ireland for ways of strengthening their power/their kingdom?

Even if somehow you get a Divided England scenario, which seems like it would not last very long.
 
Top