AHC: Ireland

Your challenge is to have Ireland become the dominant of the two major British Isles. Simple as that. Bonus points for independent Scotland and Wales. Have fun.
 
Politically impossible, Ireland just has too few people compared even to just England. Independence is possible, just about, without any periods of English domination, but England (and I mean just England because even without Scotland or Wales it would and was able to dominate Ireland) would still be dominant. If Ireland conqured England, it would end up like the normans all over again.

However, I think it might be possible for the Cultural Centre of the British Isles to be in Ireland. If Oswiu chooses to back the Celtic Church at the Synod of Whitby rather than the Catholic Church, and this state of affairs survives in Northumbria in such manner as to mean that the Midlands and Southern England have at least some following of the Celtic Church (possibly backed up by Cornwall and Wales going for the Celtic Church as well, though I think Catholicism would still be dominant in the South East), then it would be to Ireland, to Kells and the other monastic centres, that the Churches of Britain would draw influence from, and that would then aid in other Irish cultural ideas and influences following on from that.
 
Why not just get rid of England? Keep Wessex, East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia, Cornwall, Danish vassals, etc. Then just have Ireland unite into a single country and then possibly conquer some parts of Britain and you're set.

Problem is, all the factors that would keep England disunited, prolonged Viking raids/invasion/settlement, failure of the Kings who would united England, even if we have a lucky run in Ireland, are also going to occur in Ireland, preventing union and strength there.

In any case, while it might just be possible to have a united Ireland as one of the larger powers, if not the largest, this is likely to be brief and England can't be permanently split between 7 states, with even before the Danes arrived it being more common to have a single state dominating at least half of the others.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
Your challenge is to have Ireland become the dominant of the two major British Isles. Simple as that. Have fun.

Two possibilities:
1. The Romans decide the British Isles are of vital importance to the Western Empire*, and with sustained effort conquer the entire British Isles (OTL they made it right up to the Highlands) including Hibernia, the Highlands, Islands etc. But they soon find it impossible to maintain control, with the local tribes essentially waging proto guerilla warfare on their garrisons. For the first time in their histories, ancient enemies unite to repel the invaders, gaels and picts and brythons unite, forming an unstoppable tide, the likes of which was unseen since the days of Boudica. After months of bloody warfare they drive the romans right back to the coast, where they flee towards France. However the tribes know it will not be long before the Romans invade once again. They take it upon themselves to follow the Romans across the channel, forming what is a rather impressive fleet of ships for that time period, however at the time they are not concerned with naval warfare, merely with driving the Romans back and giving them a battle they will not forget! As they reach Breton they are joined by Gauls, and establish something akin to the OTL Gallic Empire. The hero of these battles is an Irish tribal chief, who won the first victory against the Romans. As the army amasses under his banner, stories of his courage and strength are told and retold, and he is worshipped almost as a God, remembered contemporarily as an Arthurian figure. For the next decades the tribes unite together to repel Roman attacks, at times even conquering their way far into Gaul. As the Roman Empire dimishes the tribes resume some of their old quarrells, and undergo a few rebellions and local feuds. But the emergent threat from Vikings, Normans, Angles, Saxons and Franks keep the Isles in an uneasy state of solidarity. (And crucially the Britons don't invite Saxons mercenaries over, as per OTL). Although it is still the southeast of England that builds up as the main port and trading post with southern europe, other trading posts and major settlements arise in Scotland and Ireland, with the chiefs (or even High Kings?) bringing back wealth from their forages into Europe.

2. With the same scenario of Roman occupation of the British Isles, Magnus Maximus is Irish and not Welsh. He never invades Italy as he suffers from sunburn :p but instead holds on to his territories of the British isles and Gaul. Although later he loses gaul after a succession of Norman invasions, the kingdom of Albion remains strong until later centuries.

Bonus points for independent Scotland and Wales.

A few hundred years later..

Following the wave of revolutions across europe, groups of peasants from OTL England begin to revolt, angered at what they perceive to be inequalities between the native Brythonic and Goidelic speakers, leading from political agitation to full scale riots. Various revolutionary leaders emerge, from Wat tyler through to Oliver Cromwell (or whatever the Brythonic equivalent!) who conquers much of the mainland and establishes the Commonwealth of Britannia. As the civil war devastates the population, a truce is agreed. The land is divided between Britannia (OTL England) and Albion (Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Wales). Scotland has been settled by the Gaels from the Highlands throughout the centuries, and Wales (known to the Britons as Cymru, and to the Gaels as An Bhreatain Bheag is a disputed territory conquered and settled during the civil war, which is later granted devolution and then independence.

*Various possible reasons, the Romans wish to expand into Scandinavia and see Ireland and the Highlands, Hebrides, Shetland, Orkney etc as ideal outposts. Or they mistakenly believe the British Isles are rich in gold or diamonds. Or (possibly a bit ASB) they have discovered North America and set up ports and settlements on Irelands West coast to trade, or dispatch military. In this case Ireland becomes densely populated, wealthy and powerful.
 
Two possibilities:
1. The Romans decide the British Isles are of vital importance to the Western Empire*, and with sustained effort conquer the entire British Isles (OTL they made it right up to the Highlands) including Hibernia, the Highlands, Islands etc. But they soon find it impossible to maintain control, with the local tribes essentially waging proto guerilla warfare on their garrisons. For the first time in their histories, ancient enemies unite to repel the invaders, gaels and picts and brythons unite, forming an unstoppable tide, the likes of which was unseen since the days of Boudica. After months of bloody warfare they drive the romans right back to the coast, where they flee towards France. However the tribes know it will not be long before the Romans invade once again. They take it upon themselves to follow the Romans across the channel, forming what is a rather impressive fleet of ships for that time period, however at the time they are not concerned with naval warfare, merely with driving the Romans back and giving them a battle they will not forget! As they reach Breton they are joined by Gauls, and establish something akin to the OTL Gallic Empire. The hero of these battles is an Irish tribal chief, who won the first victory against the Romans. As the army amasses under his banner, stories of his courage and strength are told and retold, and he is worshipped almost as a God, remembered contemporarily as an Arthurian figure. For the next decades the tribes unite together to repel Roman attacks, at times even conquering their way far into Gaul. As the Roman Empire dimishes the tribes resume some of their old quarrells, and undergo a few rebellions and local feuds. But the emergent threat from Vikings, Normans, Angles, Saxons and Franks keep the Isles in an uneasy state of solidarity. (And crucially the Britons don't invite Saxons mercenaries over, as per OTL). Although it is still the southeast of England that builds up as the main port and trading post with southern europe, other trading posts and major settlements arise in Scotland and Ireland, with the chiefs (or even High Kings?) bringing back wealth from their forages into Europe.

2. With the same scenario of Roman occupation of the British Isles, Magnus Maximus is Irish and not Welsh. He never invades Italy as he suffers from sunburn :p but instead holds on to his territories of the British isles and Gaul. Although later he loses gaul after a succession of Norman invasions, the kingdom of Albion remains strong until later centuries.



A few hundred years later..

Following the wave of revolutions across europe, groups of peasants from OTL England begin to revolt, angered at what they perceive to be inequalities between the native Brythonic and Goidelic speakers, leading from political agitation to full scale riots. Various revolutionary leaders emerge, from Wat tyler through to Oliver Cromwell (or whatever the Brythonic equivalent!) who conquers much of the mainland and establishes the Commonwealth of Britannia. As the civil war devastates the population, a truce is agreed. The land is divided between Britannia (OTL England) and Albion (Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Wales). Scotland has been settled by the Gaels from the Highlands throughout the centuries, and Wales (known to the Britons as Cymru, and to the Gaels as An Bhreatain Bheag is a disputed territory conquered and settled during the civil war, which is later granted devolution and then independence.

*Various possible reasons, the Romans wish to expand into Scandinavia and see Ireland and the Highlands, Hebrides, Shetland, Orkney etc as ideal outposts. Or they mistakenly believe the British Isles are rich in gold or diamonds. Or (possibly a bit ASB) they have discovered North America and set up ports and settlements on Irelands West coast to trade, or dispatch military. In this case Ireland becomes densely populated, wealthy and powerful.

That is quite a scenario and you win the point unless someone else can one-up it.
 
I don't think the scenario that involves Roman conquest of Britain would ever happen. The Romans had neither the capability nor the will to expand all the way through the British Isles. Maybe through Scotland, but no chance of reaching Ireland while there are still external threats that are major enough to warrant Roman attention towards them. There are almost no times they'd even consider such a thing.
 
I don't think the scenario that involves Roman conquest of Britain would ever happen. The Romans had neither the capability nor the will to expand all the way through the British Isles. Maybe through Scotland, but no chance of reaching Ireland while there are still external threats that are major enough to warrant Roman attention towards them. There are almost no times they'd even consider such a thing.

Sorry but definitely not to Scotland would the Romans go. In OTL they could barely hold on to the most northern edges of Britannia, let alone to full Scotii/Pict forces that would raid the Roman camps. Rome would have to settle for a miniature "Plot" of land in Britannia and fortify that enough to stave off those raids, but in this ATL they never got the chance.
 
Suppose William the Bastard is lost at sea in 1066, and lands with his army on Ireland instead, conquering and fortifying the isle step by step, forging it into a strong united kingdom.

The distance to Normandy makes the personal union end at the death of the Conqueror (as historically with England, but no third son will reunite the countries under one ruler here).

This Norman-Irish kingdom will, during the following centuries, exert a strong influence in Scotland and Wales, to make sure that one pro-irish ruler holds each country, and that no English advances on these areas will succeed.

Perhaps the Celtic-speaking areas of Cornwall and Cumbria could be ripped off the English jaws as well.
 
Suppose William the Bastard is lost at sea in 1066, and lands with his army on Ireland instead, conquering and fortifying the isle step by step, forging it into a strong united kingdom.

The distance to Normandy makes the personal union end at the death of the Conqueror (as historically with England, but no third son will reunite the countries under one ruler here).

This Norman-Irish kingdom will, during the following centuries, exert a strong influence in Scotland and Wales, to make sure that one pro-irish ruler holds each country, and that no English advances on these areas will succeed.

Perhaps the Celtic-speaking areas of Cornwall and Cumbria could be ripped off the English jaws as well.

To get that lost at sea between Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and Pevensy would require ASB intervention. Simply put, if he ends up off course, the simple shape of the channel means that he will either make landfall in Belgium, the Netherlands or some other part of Eastern England if he's blown East, or Normandy, Brittany, Cornwall or some other section of the south coast if blown west. To get to Ireland would require a deliberate and major change of course that William would be unlikely to go for and may not have had the supplies to do.
 
Sorry but definitely not to Scotland would the Romans go. In OTL they could barely hold on to the most northern edges of Britannia, let alone to full Scotii/Pict forces that would raid the Roman camps. Rome would have to settle for a miniature "Plot" of land in Britannia and fortify that enough to stave off those raids, but in this ATL they never got the chance.

Rome could have done it pretty easily *IF* there were no exterior threats. There are always exterior threats, and so no Empire/State will EVER be able to throw all their resources into a war.
 
For a later divergence, perhaps an English crown that is still firmly embroiled in French royal intrigue would be a good point?

If the English parts of Britain are more like Insular France than the nucleus of a British state, then Ireland or Scotland would be good candidates for a power that could come to dominate the rest of the British Isles. And when something happens to weaken France-England, they can pounce on the England part.

Maybe England wins outright in the Hundred Years' War. So now we have a state that covers all of France and England, but the locus will definitely be in France. Keeping this state together will probably consume most resources for a while, and give Scotland a chance to nibble at the North, while Ireland gets a chance to consolidate.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
Adding possibility 3. Boudicca and her rebels are successful, and defeat the Romans. However the Romans hold out in the very south east, with Londinum as their capital. Hadrians wall is built from East Anglia right across to Cornwall, which despite some advances further north becomes the extent of Roman Britain for its duration. Thus the rough lines that shape the border between England and Scotland are redrawn, altering the balance of power significantly. Although perhaps the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions play out in much the same way, the wall as a symbol dividing scotland and england remains to differentiate the later emerging powers. With the balance restored, or even in Scotland's favour, Ireland can successfully unite to defend from attack by either kingdom.

4. (A slight variation of 2.) The aforementioned Magnus Maximus, instead of rebelling and turning his attentions to gaul, is angered at the constant incursions of the Scots and leads his armies to conquer them once and for all. At which point either: -
A. He is successful, with the help of reinforcements from Romano-Germanic mercenaries etc, and conquers the entire British Isles, and successfully holds them for a period for the Roman Empire. However (again) the rebels, led by gaelic chieftans, successfuly rout the Romans from the British Isles.
B. He fails, and inadvertantly causes the gaels to unite against him, the very beginnings of a powerful gaelic confederation that would dominate the British Isles for centuries to come.

I don't think the scenario that involves Roman conquest of Britain would ever happen. The Romans had neither the capability nor the will to expand all the way through the British Isles. Maybe through Scotland, but no chance of reaching Ireland while there are still external threats that are major enough to warrant Roman attention towards them. There are almost no times they'd even consider such a thing.

Sorry but definitely not to Scotland would the Romans go. In OTL they could barely hold on to the most northern edges of Britannia, let alone to full Scotii/Pict forces that would raid the Roman camps. Rome would have to settle for a miniature "Plot" of land in Britannia and fortify that enough to stave off those raids, but in this ATL they never got the chance.

I thinks its unrealistic to say the Roman Empire hadn't the capacity, considering the vast expanses of the Roman Empire, the fierce and powerful nations they had already conquered, many much much further from home, and the power they held on to for so centuries. Not to mention the key aspect, of Romanising colonies and using them as mercenaries to defeat the next region or tribe etc. Although its a romantic notion of the rugged scots holding off the might of the roman empire, in reality the populations were too sparse and the tribal allegiances too weak to successfully hold out against a full scale invasion, although as per my atl i'd argue once colonised, and with as you say more pressing issues at hand, the romans might be beaten back by a combined effort. The main roman advances were generally to the east and south, areas they probably saw as being richer in resources and wealth than the north, which to them probably seemed little more than vast expanses of snow covered rock and savage untameable barbarian tribes. However if they had focused their advances up north, at least initially, through Gaul and Germany, invasion of the British Isles would have been easier, especially with early help from Germanic tribes. The later expansion east would provide the distraction needed to surrender the British Isles, having discovered nothing much of worth save for a few areas of precious metals which they could easily have exhausted within a few decades with the full attention of the Roman Empire. The will as you say is the key point, the romans incidentally did prove themselves capable, archaelogical evidence shows Roman Settlement in the Highlands of Scotland. Another possible motivation for the Romans could be a search for Atlantis, Ireland might have seemed a good place to start.

Rome could have done it pretty easily *IF* there were no exterior threats. There are always exterior threats, and so no Empire/State will EVER be able to throw all their resources into a war.

Again I'd argue that much of their manpower was used up in their eastern empire, if they'd focused on going north instead of east even if they had only gone half as far they'd be in Scandinavia. And the external threats to the Roman Empire (not to mention internal ones from continuous usurspers) were pretty much constant right through the Roman expansion, but still they managed to conquer very harsh and inhospitable areas.

I'm not saying my ATL isn't far-fetched, but the idea that the Roman Empire couldn't have conquered and colonised the British Isles is incorrect, imo. BTW I quite like this ATL, if anyone is interested in expanding it feel free!
 
Last edited:

Morty Vicar

Banned
Suppose William the Bastard is lost at sea in 1066, and lands with his army on Ireland instead, conquering and fortifying the isle step by step, forging it into a strong united kingdom.

The distance to Normandy makes the personal union end at the death of the Conqueror (as historically with England, but no third son will reunite the countries under one ruler here).

This Norman-Irish kingdom will, during the following centuries, exert a strong influence in Scotland and Wales, to make sure that one pro-irish ruler holds each country, and that no English advances on these areas will succeed.

Perhaps the Celtic-speaking areas of Cornwall and Cumbria could be ripped off the English jaws as well.

To get that lost at sea between Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and Pevensy would require ASB intervention. Simply put, if he ends up off course, the simple shape of the channel means that he will either make landfall in Belgium, the Netherlands or some other part of Eastern England if he's blown East, or Normandy, Brittany, Cornwall or some other section of the south coast if blown west. To get to Ireland would require a deliberate and major change of course that William would be unlikely to go for and may not have had the supplies to do.

Another possibility is that the Saxon mercenaries, originally hired to defend from attacks by Scotti and Picts, actually do their (*^(*^ job and not rebel and take over the joint :mad:.. :D

In this scenario, the saxons first attack Scotland/ Pictland, from there the isles, and because the celts keep attacking them from ireland as well they continue their fight until all those regions are conquered. As with the later norman invasion of Ireland (and Saxon invasion of England for that matter) the invaders and natives intermarry, eventually Ireland, Scotland and possibly Wales are 'Anglicised' while England remains celtic (Brythonic). I'm not sure what would happen in later eras, if 'England' didn't unify they would undoubtedly be conquered by 'Ireland' and even if not, then by later Norman invasion. Essentially it could almost be an exact parallel to the OTL England/ Ireland history, Wales/ Cymru seems a likely candidate as a replacement 'Uslter' with even OTL Irish/ Scots invasion/ immigration to the region. Which would make Cardiff and Swansea Belfast and Derry respectively, or should that be Dublinswansea? Have I taken that too far? :D
 
This can't really be done. The greater Thames valley area is always going to be the richest part of the British Isles due to be the landscape encouraging a single state, the waterway being the closest to mainland Europe for trade, and the land being so much more fertile than any other part of the British Isles.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
This can't really be done. The greater Thames valley area is always going to be the richest part of the British Isles due to be the landscape encouraging a single state, the waterway being the closest to mainland Europe for trade, and the land being so much more fertile than any other part of the British Isles.

Not necessarily, at the time England was uniting Ireland was divided into only five kingdoms. Ports in the north such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh were crucial to trade links with northern Europe, and the Hanseatic league. By the time of the discovery of America ports in Belfast and Glasgow were arguably more vital than in Liverpool or Bristol.
 

Thande

Donor
Let me put this in terms our American readers will understand. In population terms, this would be like Canada taking over the United States (in 2012). At the peak of Ireland's population catching up to Great Britain's, in the 1840s before the potato famine, it would be like Mexico taking over the United States (in 2012). The latter is a better comparison in cultural terms.
 
Let me put this in terms our American readers will understand. In population terms, this would be like Canada taking over the United States (in 2012). At the peak of Ireland's population catching up to Great Britain's, in the 1840s before the potato famine, it would be like Mexico taking over the United States (in 2012). The latter is a better comparison in cultural terms.

Like I said, if you're going to do anything close to this, it's going to have to be Medieval Ireland remaining the cultural epicentre of the Isles more by dint of prestige and tradition than anything else, much in the same way that while there are several universities in England where this or that department is as good as, or better than, the equivelent Oxbridge Department, Oxbridge still has a level of prestige, allure and simple brand recognition that puts it above them from simple age alone.
 
Top