Latest Possible Period for an Independent Ireland

That is the weakest point. there would need to be an event that proves to the Irish that the English are a double-edged sword- getting their support would only ensure they'd annex you later on. The expansion of England would have to be a little nastier, enough to prove the English only view Ireland as a land that will serve and be oppressed by them for their own uses. The destruction caused by their final campaign would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

But I think that it will be hard to present that as something threatening to all Irishmen equally as opposed to something seen as the price for those who pick a fight with England.

After all, most of the misery is going to fall on the common Irishman and woman, and few lords are going to stick out their own necks for harm done to someone else's subjects - which is kinda what this amounts to.
 
But I think that it will be hard to present that as something threatening to all Irishmen equally as opposed to something seen as the price for those who pick a fight with England.

After all, most of the misery is going to fall on the common Irishman and woman, and few lords are going to stick out their own necks for harm done to someone else's subjects - which is kinda what this amounts to.

True. Its a hard idea to get them to believe, even though it should've been obvious they planned to rule the entire island very early on.
 
True. Its a hard idea to get them to believe, even though it should've been obvious they planned to rule the entire island very early on.

Yeah. I think the element that brings it down is that while you might get someone to believe that the King of England wants all Ireland under his rule, that this is bad for all Irishmen is harder to sell - after all, the king is going to be offering rewards for those who are loyal to him/join him, and may even follow through on that.

"Independence is better." is a very idealistic argument compared to "I heard the ______ have lands you want. Join me and I'll grant you half of them."

But I like the notion of Rory and his descendants establishing enough of a something for it to harkened back to. It's easier to restore than to build from scratch.
 
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.

Ireland was bloody expensive though. She had 18,000 soldiers engaged in Ireland at the height of the Nine Years War, 6,000 more than she ever committed to the Low Countries. The Irish war was a thorn in her side all throughout, even if Spain failed to fully take advantage of it.

I feel myself though, that Kinsale or in and around 1599/1601 is the deciding point, especially for a Gaelic Ireland. I remember reading a great quote about how the Irish lost and won field battles at Kinsale and Benburb, the latter decided nothing, while the former decided everything.

Concerted Spanish support in the 1590s beyond instructors and arms would have really helped tilt the balance. English seapower wasn't as powerful as it was made out to be, the Spaniards had a good period of resurgence in the 1590s on a naval front. If only they hadn't gotten embroiled in France and tried to concentrate resources rather than fight on every front possible.

Then again, thats imagining a vassal Ireland, except to Spain rather than England, does that break the theme of the OP?
Similar religion and the language would probably be left alone as well (thinking of all the Habsburg possessions that retained their native tongues.

Envisaging an Irish Gaelic order is fascinating though.
 
Ireland was bloody expensive though. She had 18,000 soldiers engaged in Ireland at the height of the Nine Years War, 6,000 more than she ever committed to the Low Countries. The Irish war was a thorn in her side all throughout, even if Spain failed to fully take advantage of it.
Source? Not arguing, just looking for more to read up on this - I know the outline but not as many details as I'd like.

But what I was trying to say - and not to dispute that Ireland wasn't expensive - is that it was one expense on top of another by 1600.

To quote The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, "During (the 1590s) the crown spent over 350,000 pounds each year, and the Irish campaign brought the annual average to over 500,000 pounds in the queen's last four years."

If in a hypothetical situation in the 16th century England with a similar income to OTL isn't spending so much on other concerns, it seems like Ireland would be much more managable - immensely expensive, but early modern states always found war immensely expensive.

Which raises the question - relevant to the issue of central control developing: Who would have the power of the purse in our hypothetical united Ireland?

Not familiar enough with the tactical details to comment on Kinsale turning the tide OTL - although it might not be permanent, it would at least be a long term possibility just because the crown is not going to be able to finance another (however long) if this goes south any time soon, even if England as distinct from the monarchy is not drained dry. That ought to be something.
 
Source? Not arguing, just looking for more to read up on this - I know the outline but not as many details as I'd like.

But what I was trying to say - and not to dispute that Ireland wasn't expensive - is that it was one expense on top of another by 1600.

To quote The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, "During (the 1590s) the crown spent over 350,000 pounds each year, and the Irish campaign brought the annual average to over 500,000 pounds in the queen's last four years."

If in a hypothetical situation in the 16th century England with a similar income to OTL isn't spending so much on other concerns, it seems like Ireland would be much more managable - immensely expensive, but early modern states always found war immensely expensive.

Which raises the question - relevant to the issue of central control developing: Who would have the power of the purse in our hypothetical united Ireland?

Not familiar enough with the tactical details to comment on Kinsale turning the tide OTL - although it might not be permanent, it would at least be a long term possibility just because the crown is not going to be able to finance another (however long) if this goes south any time soon, even if England as distinct from the monarchy is not drained dry. That ought to be something.

Kinsale was in a way THE final time the English could've stopped O'Neill in that campaign. The Irish had routed/defeated the vast majority of the forces sent to oppose them, and if they had been able to secure Spanish support (at least from the Spanish forces besieged there if nothing else) they would've also swung many of the neutral clans to the fold. England, facing defeat and the destruction of their armies, would have to abandon their efforts for a few years.

The power of the purse, though, one would think that the High King would have at least nominal control over tax funds, with the members of the "council" of other chiefs being able to haggle over spending. Not an ideal concept to be sure, but better than the OTL arrangement. The power of the King would probably be able to determine just how much control he has over funds.
 
The power of the purse, though, one would think that the High King would have at least nominal control over tax funds, with the members of the "council" of other chiefs being able to haggle over spending. Not an ideal concept to be sure, but better than the OTL arrangement. The power of the King would probably be able to determine just how much control he has over funds.

Well, there are two questions technically - who gets to set taxes, and who gets to determine what they're spent on. I don't know enough about Irish law to know what the standard was before the Normans complicated things.

I'm not sure I'd expect the High King to have great authority - I don't know enough to do more than guess.
 
I'm not sure I'd expect the High King to have great authority - I don't know enough to do more than guess.
From the little I know of the Briton Kingdoms and the way they governed themselves, authority would depend on reputation.
It would probably depend on the situation, especially if power is derived more than influence. A Hugh O'Neill figure would have much more authority as a war hero and leader of Ulster than an average ruler. For the weaker kings, the council/individual chiefs would have more control.
 
From the little I know of the Briton Kingdoms and the way they governed themselves, authority would depend on reputation.
It would probably depend on the situation, especially if power is derived more than influence. A Hugh O'Neill figure would have much more authority as a war hero and leader of Ulster than an average ruler. For the weaker kings, the council/individual chiefs would have more control.

And that's not a particularly solid base to build on, I fear, so far as uniting Ireland and it being able to measure up against England or (potentially) Scotland.

Scotland being friendly with Ireland is hardly a given - I'm not saying it couldn't happen but it needs to be noted that there could be conflict there too. "Fellow Celts" might not mean much at all even in the realm of idealists in the period we're looking at.
 
Top