An Early Independent Ireland that isn't a massive, glittering, utopian Celtic Empire

I have seen a lot of people try, in bad attempts at Alternate History, to turn Ireland into a huge Empire. That is understandable, as I would imagine most people who even try to keep Ireland independent are probably Hibernophiles who would love to see their favorite nation dominate the world.

I'm not going to do that, but I am wondering what anyone thinks of the possibility of Ireland unifying more strongly before the English take an interest, and thus being able to withstand attempts to take it. After all, from the history I have studied, it does not seem that Ireland was a particularly useful territory to dominate: it did not have the resources to make itself a great power, and thus its resources would not have been so important that a powerful nation would bother to take on a more unified country. It seems to me that it was easily conquered largely due to disunity.

So, my idea (which I admit might be implausible, as it is late and I haven't studied this aspect of history for some time) is that an Irish king, a sort of earlier version of Brian Boru, attempts to consolidate power. He manages to begin the process of centralization, which continues after him. By about 1000, there is a King of Ireland (or "Emperor of the Irish" if you wish) who rules the whole island. It seems to me there would be few butterflies at this point...the Danes might have done a little less in Ireland, but would probably have still made roughly the same contributions they did in OTL.

I imagine then that Ireland, which would be independent but still poor, lightly populated, and without serious resources, would look for allies in Europe. My goal for this time-line would be to have, by the middle of the 16th century, Ireland allied with Spain, as a sort of puppet state to annoy England and France. The Hispano-Irish alliance would be in competition with the Auld Alliance (as, I would imagine, an Independent Scotland would be desired, certainly, by Spain and Ireland to keep England in check, and by France especially to keep both England and Spanish-allied Ireland in check) and the Anglo-Portuguese.

This would result, I believe, in a much more diverse (perhaps "balkanized") America, as six different Western European nations would be colonizing larger or smaller parts of the New World (I imagine England, Spain, Portugal and France would still get the best territories, whereas Ireland and Scotland would probably get the bits Spain and France, respectively, wanted to use as buffers against their enemies but didn't want to actually have to colonize.

I can also imagine that it might result in a wider spread of Protestantism: England would probably go Protestant on schedule, and if Spain was busier up north more Portuguese might be tempted. Scotland and France would both have large Calvinist populations, even if they remained a minority. I imagine that in TTL Spain would be the leader of the Catholic cause, and as their ally Ireland would probably come along for the ride (the polar opposite of the reasons for Ireland's adherence to Catholicism in OTL).

Please let me know what you all think of the idea...I will think about expanding it into a more coherent time-line if anyone thinks it is worthwhile. Again, this isn't an attempt at some kind of great Irish empire, but only an attempt to gain a slightly more deadlocked, competitive Western Europe and a more chaotic settlement of the New World
 
A few observations, if I may. Don't let them force you to alter your ideas, they're just there to make you think:

1 - Even if England can't casually annex Ireland as it somewhat did OTL, Ireland still won't have the resources to do more than border raids against England. This may in fact just provoke England to form a Royal Navy of slightly stronger proportions earlier on so that it can defend from south and west simultaneously. This could somewhat neutralise what threat Ireland poses to England. As a counterweight in an alliance, even an independent, unified Ireland isn't going to be worth much - Scotland, say, at least has a big border it can threaten over. Ireland's real threat would be that it can be used as a spring-board to attack England. There are certain points in history where this is feasible and certain where it isn't - the 16th century is about the earliest that Ireland is going to be of use to anyone. If England has no interests there, neither France nor Spain are likely to interfere there earlier on as it won't annoy the English at all.

2 - If Ireland's real value in an alliance is to serve as a rallying point for an invasion, this may provoke England to make a concerted effort to invade and annex it, which they may not be able to resist without serious help. If England's very existence is threatened by Ireland's position - and Spain particularly did try on several times to conquer England and enthrone their own candidate, so it could well have that risk - then England won't want to mess about when they attack.

3 - I'd ask that you bear in mind that Ireland may not entirely enjoy "puppet" status under Spain. Even though several alliances pervaded through the years, in reality they came and went and even England and France were allied on several occasions, when the time came. It's fair to say that Ireland will always be a foil to England, but they may not always sit in Spain's pocket.

4 - I've seen several people hypothesis that Ireland's stringent Catholicism was part of its reaction to indenture to England. If Ireland is independent it may allow Protestantism in, at least a little.

5 - This situation may affect colonialism but I don't think it'll alter it like you say. Remember the Treaty of Tordesillas, and Spain's conquest of Central America. The Treaty of Tordesillas, which is unlikely to be hugely altered by this POD, meant that Portugal was limited in its ambitions to
Brazil and Africa-Asia. That means it's contractually obliged to leave North America alone - so you aren't going to get Portuguese colonies in North America. Also, Spain got goldlust from attacking the Aztecs and so on, and largely didn't have the patience or resources to colonise the north, where there were no large civilisations to annex for instant land-grabbing. If Spain had had all the time in the world to do so eventually it would have taken all of North America, but frankly that won't happen. So northern Spanish colonies are unlikely too.

Anyway, there you are. Some ideas to mull over.
 
So, my idea (which I admit might be implausible, as it is late and I haven't studied this aspect of history for some time) is that an Irish king, a sort of earlier version of Brian Boru, attempts to consolidate power. He manages to begin the process of centralization, which continues after him. By about 1000, there is a King of Ireland (or "Emperor of the Irish" if you wish) who rules the whole island. It seems to me there would be few butterflies at this point...the Danes might have done a little less in Ireland, but would probably have still made roughly the same contributions they did in OTL.
Why not just use Brian Boru himself. Have him survive Clontarf for a good decade or so, long enough to establish his hold over the whole island and establish new succession based on primogeniture. This could butterfly away Dermot MacMurrough and the Norman invasion.
 
Fraxinensis

You do need something to give the Irish better overall government and central control so their not so vulnerable to any external force. However the simplest way to make 'English' occupation far less likely is to stop William the Foul. Without the Normans in England relations between England and Ireland are likely to continue to be pretty good. Also without a Norman monarch in England there is less likeihood of Norman adventurers moving into Ireland. [If they do and England is still Saxon, especially if the Normans are still clinging to a claim to the English throne you might see England coming to the aid of the Irish to expel the Normans and prevent them establishing a dangerous base west of England.

Steve
 
Thank you for the ideas, everyone. Falustur, I especially am glad to see your points, which I'd like to post responses to (not refutations: I'm just thinking them through "aloud," so to speak).

1 - Even if England can't casually annex Ireland as it somewhat did OTL, Ireland still won't have the resources to do more than border raids against England. This may in fact just provoke England to form a Royal Navy of slightly stronger proportions earlier on so that it can defend from south and west simultaneously. This could somewhat neutralise what threat Ireland poses to England. As a counterweight in an alliance, even an independent, unified Ireland isn't going to be worth much - Scotland, say, at least has a big border it can threaten over. Ireland's real threat would be that it can be used as a spring-board to attack England. There are certain points in history where this is feasible and certain where it isn't - the 16th century is about the earliest that Ireland is going to be of use to anyone. If England has no interests there, neither France nor Spain are likely to interfere there earlier on as it won't annoy the English at all.

First, I'm not sure that England and Ireland would necessarily be hostile to each other in the beginning: that is after all not a law of nature :). If Ireland were united well before the English get involved at all, they might only bother each other a little bit, with both sides knowing from the beginning not to mess with each other too seriously.

I can see how it might be somewhat useless as an ally...perhaps Ireland becomes a loose ally of Spain through marriages and good diplomacy, and then when the Spanish feel that they need a counter-weight to England they already have a convenient ally to use.

2 - If Ireland's real value in an alliance is to serve as a rallying point for an invasion, this may provoke England to make a concerted effort to invade and annex it, which they may not be able to resist without serious help. If England's very existence is threatened by Ireland's position - and Spain particularly did try on several times to conquer England and enthrone their own candidate, so it could well have that risk - then England won't want to mess about when they attack.

That would certainly be true. I would expect that English and Spanish activity in that part of the world would get considerably nastier. In fact, I am not viewing this TL as a superior TL to our own: I think it would quite possibly stagnate into a 16th century cold war.

3 - I'd ask that you bear in mind that Ireland may not entirely enjoy "puppet" status under Spain. Even though several alliances pervaded through the years, in reality they came and went and even England and France were allied on several occasions, when the time came. It's fair to say that Ireland will always be a foil to England, but they may not always sit in Spain's pocket.

I'm pretty sure that Ireland would not enjoy being a puppet state of Spain. They might enjoy it better than belonging territorially to the King of England, but probably not by much. I would keep in mind the changing nature of alliances: even England and Portugal were not always the best of friends at every moment in their history. I could even see some betrayals: the King of Ireland helps the English out when he thinks Spain is getting too powerful, etc.

4 - I've seen several people hypothesis that Ireland's stringent Catholicism was part of its reaction to indenture to England. If Ireland is independent it may allow Protestantism in, at least a little.

Perhaps it is a small liberty I am taking, but I like the idea of a kind of convergent evolution: Ireland becomes stringently Catholic in conjunction with a stringently Catholic ally, rather than in defiance of a stringently Protestant ruler.

5 - This situation may affect colonialism but I don't think it'll alter it like you say. Remember the Treaty of Tordesillas, and Spain's conquest of Central America. The Treaty of Tordesillas, which is unlikely to be hugely altered by this POD, meant that Portugal was limited in its ambitions to
Brazil and Africa-Asia. That means it's contractually obliged to leave North America alone - so you aren't going to get Portuguese colonies in North America. Also, Spain got goldlust from attacking the Aztecs and so on, and largely didn't have the patience or resources to colonise the north, where there were no large civilisations to annex for instant land-grabbing. If Spain had had all the time in the world to do so eventually it would have taken all of North America, but frankly that won't happen. So northern Spanish colonies are unlikely too.

Well, Portugal may be limited, and Spain less limited, but still the addition of two extra (small) players has got to change things somewhat. Spain doesn't care about northern colonies, but if they see England and France competing in OTL Canada and the U.S., maybe they help sponsor an Irish colony in the north (the Irish might be happy to get colonial prestige and extra territory, and the Spanish would gladly let other people form a buffer between them and the English and French. Also, I believe the original Treaty of Tordesillas would have ended Portuguese ambitions in the Americas altogether, or at least limited them to a tip of Brazil. They ended up with a massive South American Empire anyway.


Steve, I like the idea of the lack of a Norman monarch in England...thus preserving England from Norman rule and Ireland's independence, both things I think I would historically "like." Maybe things would go a little differently...I could see Normans in Ireland ending up more like the Vikings had before them, and contributing to the social and political makeup of the island without becoming an impetus for (serious) foreign invasion.
 
Consider the OTL relationship of England and Scotland with their neighbours across the North Sea - Denmark and Norway.

North Sea is a bit wider than Irish Sea, but Norway and Denmark were relatively sparsely settled poor backwaters. In Viking times, they had actively raided and tried to conquer Britain - but afterwards, neither England nor Scotland tried to attack mainland Scandinavia. The relationships were peaceful trade and occasional marriage alliance. Scotland did take over Sodor and Man by force (harassment leading to battle of Largs) but then never attacked Orkney and Shetland before receiving them as dowry.

If the 12th century High Kings keep the opposition just down enough that the English cannot conquer Ireland as they did OTL, how would the diplomatic relationships of Ireland be with England, Wales, Scotland, Norway, France, Castile and Pope?

Could the High Kings of Ireland found an Irish Parliament early on?
 
So, my idea (which I admit might be implausible, as it is late and I haven't studied this aspect of history for some time) is that an Irish king, a sort of earlier version of Brian Boru, attempts to consolidate power. He manages to begin the process of centralization, which continues after him. By about 1000, there is a King of Ireland (or "Emperor of the Irish" if you wish) who rules the whole island. It seems to me there would be few butterflies at this point...the Danes might have done a little less in Ireland, but would probably have still made roughly the same contributions they did in OTL.
Well, they already had a 'high king', "Ard Rí". I don't suppose they'd likely invent a new term for an already existing (sort of) post.

Having Brian Boru (or someone like him) establish the 'High King'ship as a real, functioning entity not tied to the holder's personal power would go a long way to what you want. IMO
 
So, my idea (which I admit might be implausible, as it is late and I haven't studied this aspect of history for some time) is that an Irish king, a sort of earlier version of Brian Boru, attempts to consolidate power.

Have you any thoughts as to from whence this king might come - Muster, Connaught, Ulaidh, etc?
 
Top