Avoid the English conquest of Ireland

I take it you mean by the Normans, who had also conquered England a century before.

Just change 1066. Anglo-Saxon England had never shown any particular interest in invading Ireland.
 
Which means that Ireland gets invaded by the Scots or even Norwegians instead. Who had much stronger drivers in terms of poor agricultural land at home. You need a stronger and more centralised Irish state. Once feuding princes start importing large quantities of foreign mercenaries, the writing is generally on the wall. Just like the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, the Irish initially invited the Normans in. Historically it is not a good strategy..
 
Which means that Ireland gets invaded by the Scots or even Norwegians instead. Who had much stronger drivers in terms of poor agricultural land at home. You need a stronger and more centralised Irish state. Once feuding princes start importing large quantities of foreign mercenaries, the writing is generally on the wall. Just like the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, the Irish initially invited the Normans in. Historically it is not a good strategy..

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be absorbed by the Irish eventually. I think the idea is to keep Ireland from being occupied by the English. 1066 is the best bet, because it avoids the hundred year war, that essentially sparked English interest in controlling Ireland. England couldn't afford a rival like France using Ireland as a launching pad for invasion. That said keeping them independent forever is almost impossible once an English identity does emerge. Even with a PoD of 1066 you might still see an eventual Anglo-Saxon conquest of the island.

To be sure you might want to butterfly the whole Anglo identity. Keeping the kingdoms fractured until 1700s should be enough.
 
To be sure you might want to butterfly the whole Anglo identity. Keeping the kingdoms fractured until 1700s should be enough.
Which probably means that they get conquered by the French or Spanish instead as they project power against each other! One of the things you have to remember is that, prior to the Tudors, the English overlordship of Ireland is a fairly benign situation. The English aren't being hugely exploitative and are mainly confined to strategic coastal areas and their main preoccupation is to work with the locals to keep any (other) foreign invaders out. As the Scots are actually and actively threatening, this works well for over 250 years.
Irish (Geraldine) intervention in the Wars of the Roses then prompts the Tudors to take a more active role in governing Ireland and the English Reformation (and Counter-Reformation) adds impetus to this. Active colonisation is largely triggered by Edward VI and then Queen Mary and continues under Elizabeth but largely at an elite level. What really changes thing is the Stuart succession which removes the vested English interest in preventing large scale Scottish settlement (at a non-elite level which involves displacement of the non-aristocratic population).

As I said, you actually need a stronger and more centralised Irish state which is able to organise its own defence and ally with Anglo-Saxon England on similar but more equal terms to the Lordship of Ireland.
 
But you still have to keep the Scots, Scandinavians and Spanish out. Best bet for Irish independence is still alliance with her big neighbour.
 
As I said, you actually need a stronger and more centralised Irish state which is able to organise its own defence and ally with Anglo-Saxon England on similar but more equal terms to the Lordship of Ireland.

I think this may need on older PoD then. The Irish did have raiders and pirates all of their own. A lot of this does come from the lack of a strong central government, but it did have at times a central government in the form of High Kings. In an interesting way a proper Norse invasion beyond small scale occupations and raids might actually prompt this. Something similar to the Great Heathen Army that happened to the Anglo-Saxons. One of the issues was clan loyalty first, state second. Centralising the government means dealing with this and nothing puts traditions to rest like a fight for survival.

But you still have to keep the Scots, Scandinavians and Spanish out. Best bet for Irish independence is still alliance with her big neighbour.

I think we have an issue with projection when it comes to Ireland. With the Scots there were raids, but to my knowledge no serious attempts to take the island. Even then the ability for any of these nations to actually hold Ireland is debatable. Even the majority of English that settled there were absorbed into the Irish culture. Spain in this TL might not even have a reason to take the island and if it did, what's to say it doesn't lose it similar to the dutch territories?

The English had a ton of advantages over anyone else in taking Ireland, but even they still faced problems nearly every generation.
 
The key in my opinion is to delay the formation of a united English state until the Irish consolidate into a united political entity and stay united. That is probably the trickier part due to the way inheritance seemed to work in Ireland plus medieval states which suffered periods of instability tended not to get left alone - see England in the early 13th century or the Byzantine Empire basically every time an imperial dynasty died out or stalled.

teg
 
With the Scots there were raids, but to my knowledge no serious attempts to take the island.
The Scots had penetrated and settled Antrim and the McDonnell family had achieved hegenomy overy the north of that county by the late 1400s and that was with the English actively supporting the efforts of the O'Neill and O'Donnell clans to keep the Scots out. Once the Stuarts took over England as well as Scotland the Ulster Plantation took place.
England had better land than Ireland and a bigger economy so there was only elite settlement - e.g. The O'Gorman Mor gets beheaded for opposing the Crown and some English courtier is granted his estates and becomes Earl of Dunlough. However ,other than a few key servants and henchmen, his tenantry remain native Irish and life for the ordinary peasant goes on much the same.
Scotland has poorer and more marginal land than Ireland so, if Sir Walter Johnstone gets a grant of Irish land, there is wholesale resettlement with most tenants of the deposed Irish aristocrat being driven out or even killed and their farms allocated to tenants of his and allied Surnames (which is what they called their clans down in the Scottish Borders). They have a huge incentive to come with him and get better farmland as a reward.
The English courtier is probably a younger son with few or no tenants and they have very little incentive to come to where there are smaller farms and poorer land. So the new Earl of Dunlough brings over a steward and a chaplain (who would have had much more junior positions at home and are incentivised by the promotion) and a dozen hard men to act as rent collectors/enforcers/bodyguards (middlemen) -who would have been not terribly well off ex soldiers and who have each suddenly become tenant in chief for 4,000 odd of the Earl's 50,000 acres. However he wouldn't be able to raise 5,000 English peasants to take ten acre tenancies each in place of his native tenants whereas the Scots Laird could -and usually did.

Ireland's problem is that it sits on England's (and Scotland's) flank and (once it is discovered) between England and the New World. Doesn't matter whether Ireland's neighbour in any TL is Prydain, Anglelond, Great Mercia, Le Royaume Uni de France et Angleterre etc. etc. Any continental rival will try to draw Ireland into their camp or conquer her outright and "England" will react accordingly. If "England" is weak and divided then a continental power will seize/puppetise Ireland in some of TTL's power struggles. If "England" is stronger she will do the same as a defensive reflex.

Strategically the best thing Ireland can do is ally with "England" and ensure "England2 guarantees" her security and sovreignty.
 
In an interesting way a proper Norse invasion beyond small-scale occupations and raids might actually prompt this. Something similar to the Great Heathen Army that happened to the Anglo-Saxons.

Ala me - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/one-people-one-kingdom.424453/

Now after my shameless advertising, like nearly all scenarios on the site it is possible with a range of PODs and then gets harder as we coalesce to a certain date in a free Ireland situation that would be 1169. What you need for an unconquered Ireland is, as said before in the thread, political unity. As Ireland is an island and naval invasions are never fun with political unity the resources of said Island can be brought to bear in a crucial manner. While England is larger and richer than Ireland the comparisons of the populations of Ireland and England are dwarfed by the size of France to England. What this shows is while a state may possess a great number of resources what matters is said state's ability to bring it to bear especially pre-modern ones. With planning and - assuming Ireland is mostly on the defensive - the home advantage, the moving of events and the sheer luck of history Ireland could very well avoid conquest and possibly contribute to the political events of the continent.
 
As most people have said, the great issue is the lack of internal cohesion among the Irish. There are exceptions. Brian Boru or Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair were both rather powerful High-Kings, and some sources say the latter attempted to institute male primogeniture. However they lost power after a generation. I'd say one method of achieving internal cohesion in Ireland is by screwing the Irish in the short term for long term gain. Have someone conquer Ireland almost in its entirety, form a ruling elite that makes necessary changes to law and succession to gain internal coherence, and then have the foreign elite gradually be subsumed by the wider Irish culture while retaining the crucial changes. So 100-200 years of foreign occupation only for the resurgence of a more native Irish state.

One issue is that you have to prevent Henry II from coming to Ireland and declaring himself Lord of Ireland. He really didn't want Norman lords holding land in southern Wales to grow outside his jurisdiction, in particular he didn't want Richard de Clare to declare himself King of Leinster. Several things could help this. Prevent the Papal Bull of 1155 that supposedly gave the Normans leave to conquer Ireland in return for making sure the Irish church started to follow the Gregorian Reforms. The Norman mercenaries could not be as successful, not forcing Henry II to ensure his supremacy.

Here's a scenario. The Normans still invade after being recruited by Diarmait Mac Murchada, but they don't have the fabulous success of overrunning the Norse-Gael towns of the southeast coast. Somehow the Norse-Gaels win. However the Norse-Gaels of Dublin recruit the Norman mercenaries themselves after winning, promising them lands if they fight for them. Somehow the Norse-Gaels don't fall into the same trap as all the other areas where Norman mercenaries arrives only to overthrow their employers. Dublin and the Normans conquer Leinster, with Diarmait becoming a vassal of Dublin. With the Normans defeated and under Dublin's control, Henry II decides to ignore the activities in Ireland and the Church is satisfied with promises from Dublin to enforce the Gregorian reforms, since the English Pope Adrian IV who signed the bull is long dead. Over a century or so fabulous success allows Dublin to conquer all of Ireland. The Normans brought castle building and stricter succession laws, which were adopted by the Norse-Gaels of Dublin. Eventually Normans and Norse-Gaels Gaelicize, only keeping the new laws that brought stability. So you end up with a largely Gaelic Ireland state maybe around 1300-1400.

Or a simpler solution is to have one French king decide in their feuds with England to strike the English Lordship of Ireland. He marries a daughter or a female relative to one of the Irish kings still fighting the Normans. France sends enough money and men for that Irish king to unite independent Ireland behind him firmly, and then to overrun the English positions in Ireland. If the Irish don't elect that king's eldest son by the French princess, the guy goes to France. He returns to Ireland with men and French support, conquering Ireland. He then adopts French laws of succession, keeping his power through French support.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I think we have an issue with projection when it comes to Ireland. With the Scots there were raids, but to my knowledge no serious attempts to take the island. Even then the ability for any of these nations to actually hold Ireland is debatable. Even the majority of English that settled there were absorbed into the Irish culture. Spain in this TL might not even have a reason to take the island and if it did, what's to say it doesn't lose it similar to the dutch territories?

.

There was a serious attempt to take Ireland by Robert the Bruce, a very early example of "Liberia syndrome".


I absolutely loved this post, even though I disagreed with the conclusions that came at the end of the beautifully detailed explanation of processes I had not fully understood previously. Exactly the kind of thing I come on this site for.
 
Don't forget that England is Ireland's main trading partner for over 1,000 years. An Ireland that is independent but hostile to its larger neighbour or to which that same neighbour is hostile enough to place trade sanctions on would be a fairly miserable place to live in.
 

dcharleos

Donor
What the title says. How can the Irish avoid getting conquered by the English?

Something that comes to mind:

Ireland unites during the early migration period, while England is very much not united. How? Let's handwave a Paddy the sorta-Great into existence. Paddy replaces the tanistry system of succession with something that is more conducive to keeping a kingdom united, like a primogeniture, an Ottoman style succession, or something altogether unique. Fast forward a decade or a dozen. While the Saxons are assaulting the Eastern part of Britain, Ireland establishes and maintains control over parts of modern-day Wales and/or Scotland and/or Cornwall. Perhaps this control springs from a mercantile or commercial relationship, perhaps Ireland provides troops to help fend off the Saxons, perhaps it's a little of both. As Irish missionaries flood the still Celtic parts of Britain, the Irish influence becomes more durable. With an Irish state that is significantly more powerful than any of the petty kingdoms, Ireland can work to keep England fragmented. Of course, strangling England in it's crib mightn't be what you're looking for, but it's food for thought.
 
The idea that the English conquest was inevitable or almost inevitable even if Ireland was centralised is historical determinism at its worst, even when they controlled significant amounts of Ireland the English were still almost driven into bankruptcy by the Nine Years War plus the population difference between England and Ireland didn't become extremely large until the famine and resulting waves of emigration. In addition there are many countries that have survived having hostile neighbours such as Portugal or the Netherlands (and unlike them Ireland has the advantage of having a sea around it).
 

Maoistic

Banned
The idea that the English conquest was inevitable or almost inevitable even if Ireland was centralised is historical determinism at its worst, even when they controlled significant amounts of Ireland the English were still almost driven into bankruptcy by the Nine Years War plus the population difference between England and Ireland didn't become extremely large until the famine and resulting waves of emigration. In addition there are many countries that have survived having hostile neighbours such as Portugal or the Netherlands (and unlike them Ireland has the advantage of having a sea around it).

Actually, being an island is what screwed Ireland in my opinion. Sure they have sea protecting them, but the Irish are also completely on their own at the Western extreme of Europe, which is why continental European states struck more alliances with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of southern Britain than with the more faraway sea island of the Irish where sending any kind of help was much more harder.
 
Honestly, just let the Scots take the island... they’re Irish anyway.

:biggrin:

As a Scotsman I’d disagree with that lol

I know you’re engaging in “banter” but not all Scots are Gaelic. Scotland was brittonic long before the gaels turned up it’s similar to saying all English are Anglo Saxon.
 
The idea that the English conquest was inevitable or almost inevitable even if Ireland was centralised is historical determinism at its worst, even when they controlled significant amounts of Ireland the English were still almost driven into bankruptcy by the Nine Years War plus the population difference between England and Ireland didn't become extremely large until the famine and resulting waves of emigration. In addition there are many countries that have survived having hostile neighbours such as Portugal or the Netherlands (and unlike them Ireland has the advantage of having a sea around it).
I think you need to distinguish between historical determinism (which I also don't believe in) and geostrategic determinism which is very hard to avoid. For instance Scotland has a lot of economically marginal agricultural land so border raids on their larger wealthier southern neighbours are nearly inevitable regardless of who is in charge. The Picts did it (which is why Hadrian had a wall built) the Scots did it and, if the Galston had invaded Scotland instead of Ireland they would have done it too. Same story in Afghanistan, if it had been settled by the Tajiks or the Mingrelians or the Goths instead of the Pathans there would still have been periodic raids and invasions of India. If the Angles had settled Denmark and the Jutes England European history would have been profoundly different but TTL "Denmark " would still have controlled the Baltic trade until a Kiel canal was constructed. Likewise whoever controls the Dardanelles be they the Sultan of Turkey, Emperor of Byzantine or Shah in shah Paula view controls the entry to the Black Sea and, if the Ukraine and South Russia are controlled by someone different, be they Tsar of Russia, Great Khan of the Avars or King of Poland -Lithuania they will have the same military and strategic and economic interests in seizing control that Tsarist Russia had OTL. No matter how different the cultural situation, what a general or admiral sees when he reads a map is pretty much the same.
 
Top