Trouble is, even if Ireland breaks free or establishes itself at some point - say the 16th century - what's to stop England from later stomping it?
The key reason for English presence in Ireland was the fear that it would be used as a backdoor to invade England. An independent Ireland would ironically be a boon for England - too weak to intervene in English affairs but strong enough to keep out outsiders.
Even with Henry's attention, it was hardly enough to ensure Ireland was English controlled for centuries.
Trouble is, even if Ireland breaks free or establishes itself at some point - say the 16th century - what's to stop England from later stomping it?
Ireland's independence being maintained, not merely achieved, is going to be thornier to do than write.
I don't want to be a wet blanket, far from it - just trying to illustrate what it has to deal with to really measure up here.
Easy enough to stop Strongbow, but does that prevent a later thing? That's harder to say.
What about a long-term dynastic union with Scotland? Together, especially with Continental allies, they would probably be able to keep the English from outright conquering either of them.
I'm not sure that such an Ireland wouldn't be conquered for the usual reason big states took over little states, however.
And strong enough to keep out outsiders does not mean that it won't willingly support said outsiders, so its still a worrisome backdoor.
An English conquest would be easier said than done frankly; an enormous drain of resources before the late 18th century - or even the early 19th. Remember Elizabeth was nearly bankrupted by her conquest and she could count on a huge faction of loyalists that wouldn't exist in whatever timeline produced an independent Ireland in the first place. As late as 1831 the Irish made up almost a full third of the population of the entire British Isles - a curb stomp is improbable.
Besides Ireland has no reason to pick a fight with Britain - trade would overwhemingly favour an accomodation with her. I'll admit religious differences could be a fly in the oinment.
Elizabeth was also dealing with the expenses of other conflicts, the fact her father and older sister had hardly left a full treasury, and other concerns. I don't think we can say the Irish war alone lead to near bankruptcy.
And I'm not really sure that it needs to be a curbstomp to conquer Ireland. Especially if we're talking about piece by piece instead of attempting to take the whole island in one giant gulp.
As for having no reason to pick a fight with Britain/England/whatever: That doesn't mean England will see it that way or that Ireland's kings will see it that way.
Is Ireland going to inevitably be unable to be independent? No. But even "united and independent" dose not mean "secure" when you have a much larger neighbor - and in absence of elaboration, a much more powerful neighbor in ways that magnify that disadvantage ("centralized as early modern states go Ireland" would take some doing).
But the point is England is not a much larger neighbour, or at least was not until comparatively recently. It is bigger certainly and most likely considerably richer come what may but the population difference only becomes insurmountable in the second half of the 19th century. Until then Ireland was consistently more heavily populated than Scotland - and look at the trouble Scotland gave England. Without the demographic catastrophe of the mid 1640s the population gap would be even narrower.
And there is no particular reason to see Ireland becoming centralized and with strong royal power independent of the strength of individual High Kings. That was difficult in most (if not all) states, and many - such as Denmark or Scotland - show how misfortune can derail things considerably. Misfortunes of the sort few states avoided entirely (did any medieval kingdom avoid having a king die prematurely and leave an underaged heir?).The truth is that without the internal divisions in Ireland the English probably did not have the strength or economic muscle to hold Ireland in the Tudor or Stuart era.
Besides which there is no reason to assume non-Norman Ireland would remain disunited or particularly de-centralised - the Russian principalities and Iberian Christian kingdoms were just as disunited and look what happened there. If anything the situation in the 1150s and 60s pointed towards a strong centralising trend - the Church had been reformed and it's links with Rome greatly strengthen under Saint Malachy and Rory O'Connor was imposing client kings on rebellious provinces. Another century, or even half century might have easily seen unification.
Do you have some good population sources on Ireland's population in the period between (say) AD 1000 and the mid-17th century? I'm not long on figures myself - The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History gives Ireland about a million to England and Wales being three million in 1346, which is enough to be pretty significant. Not "insurmountable", but certainly with the odds against the Irish.
Scotland gave England plenty of trouble, but it might well be noted that as of Edward I's death, Scotland remaining independent was not a certainty if things continued as they had been going in the last few years.
And there is no particular reason to see Ireland becoming centralized and with strong royal power independent of the strength of individual High Kings. That was difficult in most (if not all) states, and many - such as Denmark or Scotland - show how misfortune can derail things considerably. Misfortunes of the sort few states avoided entirely (did any medieval kingdom avoid having a king die prematurely and leave an underaged heir?).
Rory (or someone in his position) being a successful is a requirement to have a success here, but it's not enough- just as one good emperor won't centralize the HRE, or other examples that have to be built up over the long haul.
I'm not an expert on medieval Ireland, so I'd be happy to hear of anything indicating that Irish kings had the tools for that. But I'm not really seeing why you think Ireland's odds are so favorable - sure, Tudor or Stuart England isn't a military powerhouse by Continental standards, but how much does it need to take over Ireland?
That seems about accurate. The population gap narrowed in the 14th century as England was more heavily hit by the Black Death. It widened again in the mid 17th century - Ireland suffered disastorously from the War of the Three Kingdoms (Sir William Petty estimated Ireland suffered 616,000 dead between 1641 and 1651 from war and war related causes like famine.) The gap narrowed again in the 18th century before widening permanantly in the 1840s as the Irish population went into freefall and the English population exploded.
What makes you refer to it breaking the back of the English economy?I find it very significant that even under Edward I with Scotland at the nadir of her power English domination lasted all of twenty, depended on a divided opposition, some of them very willing to help the English for their own reasons - and still nearly the back of the English economy.
Shipping is easier than roads, especially up in the Highlands. So I'm not really sure that the sea part is as big a deal.Against (hypothetically independent) Ireland the English would be an even weaker position; the Irish have the sea around them meaning any invasion force would have to be shipped in along with reinforcements. Without a secure and friendly base of allies - and even in 1169 the Normans could count on friends in Leinster and in fact every successful or near successful invasion of Ireland has depended on the same - that is a tall order for medival through Stuart England.
I disagree. Scotland was subdued, or well on its way, in 1307. That Edward II was incapable of keeping that up says more about Edward II than Scotland or limits on English resources.The Scottish situation shows that England simply did not have the strength to subdue a medium sized kingdom unless it had numerous allies amongst the local population (and even then.) Could England have managed a conquest wholesale? Yes, but only by abandoning pretensions elsewhere - this England would have to forget about France and maybe even Scotland depending on the time period.
My point is that you can't just say "Rory was kicking ass and taking heads." and unification will naturally follow. Rory and his successors have to have something that isn't dependent on the High King (as in, the individual monarch) being the biggest bruiser to meaningfully unite Ireland.I'm not sure I understand your objections about presupposing a unity of in Ireland though; I though I made it clear that such unity was neccessary for any sort of independence but also very possible. The French king in the 12th century wielded barely more authority than Rory over his subjects (less perhaps, due to the greater cultural and religious conformity in early medieval Ireland), but France did not stay an anarchy of competing nobles.
So for discussion's sake, we can probably estimate Ireland as close to a third of the population of England for purposes of comparisons to other "small states picked on by big states" - counting Normandy and Anjou but not counting Wales and so on messing with this, but good enough for a general figure?
I'm not against more specific in any given scenario, but for the time period we're looking at, it seems easier than trying to run an average for such varying degrees of other territory.
The Remonstrances and the expulsion of the English Jews. Edward was something of a financial wizard (a lesser king would have run into money crisis much earlier) but his wars were funded by a once off windfall and levels of taxation that were unsubstainable in any long term context and nearly drove his kingdom into civil war.What makes you refer to it breaking the back of the English economy?
That's partly true but it also assumes control of the sea which is by no means a given with hypotethical independent Ireland. Additionally control of Scotland would not be won in the Highlands - or in the Burren in Ireland.Shipping is easier than roads, especially up in the Highlands.
Scotland was subdued in 1296. By 1307 the English had only just recovered from one major Scottish rebellion (through politics and bribery) only to see their 1305 settlement collapse like a house of cards when Robert the Bruce got himself crowned. The situation was not neccessarily fatal to English hopes but it is a severe exaggeration to say Scotland was becoming more subdued; the fact that Robert was able to get himself crowned at all hardly points to a strenghtening English hand.I disagree. Scotland was subdued, or well on its way, in 1307. That Edward II was incapable of keeping that up says more about Edward II than Scotland or limits on English resources.
True enough, but why do you assume they would not? The provincial kings were growing richer, more powerful and better able to project that power - as I noted before Rory was able to place his puppet on the throne of Midhe, something impossible two centuries earlier. I see no evidence that process would not continue and intensify.My point is that you can't just say "Rory was kicking ass and taking heads." and unification will naturally follow. Rory and his successors have to have something that isn't dependent on the High King (as in, the individual monarch) being the biggest bruiser to meaningfully unite Ireland.
The Kings of France had the bonds of feudal loyalties and oaths and laws. What do the the heirs of Rory have? What does Irish law grant the High King that ties the lesser kings to the center regardless of whether or not he's just beaten them in battle?
What powers does he have to change that law if it isn't providing that?
This is the sort of thing that has to be addressed to get from "Successful Rory" to "Independent Eire", and I'm asking because I don't know what the answers are.
This is the basic TL idea of mine that I've gleaned party from history, partly from here.
What if Rory O'Connor becomes king as OTL, but after a major victory over a Norman army, one that delays expansion by a few years? He uses his political capital to reform Irish law to allow for more centralization, but eventually his line does die out/lose power. Even though there is no High King in Eire anymore, the precedent and the law is still there. Centralization becomes possible, with the occasional chieftain claiming the throne, even though there is still squabbling and English expansion.
Jump to the campaign of Hugh O'Neill, where he is winning victory after victory
and gains real spanish support. He drives the English back into The Pale, and forces a punitive treaty.However, the English become more and more nasty as they are driven back, devastating the countryside to an extent the Irish begin to all realize just who the real enemy is. When peace comes, the chieftains begin to rebuild, Then they call a council to declare High King, and O'Neill is selected. Thus a dynasty is born, leading a divided, infighting, yet slowly centralizing Eire, knowing that an enemy is over the sea, wanting revenge. This could make for a few huge wars, and an ireland desperately trying to unite against a common enemy.
I like this idea in a broad sense, but this (underlined) is the area I question.
Why are the Irish leaders going to see the English as a common enemy as opposed to seeing being on the good side of the English as a good idea (whether that's wise or not)? Unity requires focusing on that over grudges and disputes that having English help could make easier to solve.