The Scottish-Irish Empire

As we know, the Scots-Irish were among those who settled the American frontier in the 1700s and it was their familiarity with the backwoods which helped America win the Revolutionary War.

My question is, could this tenacity have resulted in an alliance and an eventual Scottish-Irish Empire, perhaps beginning in the 12-13th centuries?

Would this alliance have conquered England, or would they have been content on allowing England to slide into relatively minor status as a member of the Empire by the nineteenth century? And what would happen to England's royalty as a result?
 
As we know, the Scots-Irish were among those who settled the American frontier in the 1700s and it was their familiarity with the backwoods which helped America win the Revolutionary War.

My question is, could this tenacity have resulted in an alliance and an eventual Scottish-Irish Empire, perhaps beginning in the 12-13th centuries?

Would this alliance have conquered England, or would they have been content on allowing England to slide into relatively minor status as a member of the Empire by the nineteenth century? And what would happen to England's royalty as a result?

So what your suggesting is that England never picks up Scotland or Ireland, but still has the American colonies which revolt:confused:

No they would not have conquered England nor would England have sunk into inadequacy.

There were socio and economic reasons that England ruled the British isles. Simplified, the English were alot richer than Scotland and Ireland, and there was more Englishmen than Scotsmen or Irishmen.
 
As we know, the Scots-Irish were among those who settled the American frontier in the 1700s and it was their familiarity with the backwoods which helped America win the Revolutionary War.

My question is, could this tenacity have resulted in an alliance and an eventual Scottish-Irish Empire, perhaps beginning in the 12-13th centuries?

Would this alliance have conquered England, or would they have been content on allowing England to slide into relatively minor status as a member of the Empire by the nineteenth century? And what would happen to England's royalty as a result?

I can't see it happening. Scotland and Ireland are; with no offence intended at any Scots or Irishmen out there (I am part Irish myself) relatively poor and inhospitable backwaters compared to England. That's the reason the Romans never conquered them; there was simply no need to do so. Even at the height of Norman power in the twelfth century, there was no major English desire to conquer all of Ireland; for much the same reason.
Scotland, it is worth noting, only really began to "boom" following the Union of the crowns; Mary of Scots for example only accepted the Scottish crown as something of a consolation prize; what she really wanted, and nearly got, was the English throne. England is larger, richer, and more fertile than Scotland and Ireland put together. Even now, around 85% of the population of the United Kingdom resides in England.
 
Your POD would have to be pre-Roman. And it would have to take alot to make England have nothing to do with the conquest of either. It may well be that Carthage came to England for an already established lumber trade, and that would be almost 200 years before Rome ever drew a sword that far north, so chances are that there was never any chance in history that the natives of Scotland or Ireland would ever have had a chance to grow up completely seperate from England nor would their character have been the same. And on this day of all days, what would Ireland have been without the influence of the Christian church and the vast amount of scholarship that they saved after the fall of Rome. Also happy St. Pattys day...

Is it true that Rome has no record of St. Patrick ever actually being ordained a Saint?
 
As we know, the Scots-Irish were among those who settled the American frontier in the 1700s and it was their familiarity with the backwoods which helped America win the Revolutionary War.

My question is, could this tenacity have resulted in an alliance and an eventual Scottish-Irish Empire, perhaps beginning in the 12-13th centuries?
First you would have to have Emmet Brown invent the flux capacitor and allow the American Scots-Irish to travel back in time to colonize Scotland and Ireland and replaced the Gaelic languages with Scots, and create the Scots-Irish people centuries before they existed. Then they could maybe form an empire.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I just think the random USA reference is completely out of place when you are talking about a POD 500 years before Europeans even knew of the America's existence (excluding the Vikings, of course).
 
I think the reference to the ARW was just about the temerity and prowess of the Scots-Irish in irregular military circumstances, not the idea that this TL should include a Scots-Irish 13 Colonies.

That said, I'm not sure those qualities would aid in conquering the mostly-flat, territorially-vast English countryside. And I'd have to add my voice to the crowd saying that Scotland and Ireland could never conquer England, for the reasons stated.
 
What you need to think of is wether the Irish and the scots would want to have an alliance-empire, if such a thing exists.
The AH Empire existed partly because of rioting and civil disorder, not as a union of the two empires.
I believe that they could perhaps creater an alliance, if, for example, England threatens them both, but they wouldn't easily be able to overrun England, because, as Basileus Giorgios explained, they didn't have enough resources or men.
 
The Austro-Hungarian Empire came about because the Austrian Archduke inherited, or was elected to (I think it was election) the Hungarian throne. It wasn't an alliance between states, it was a personal union. I think you're thinking about the 1848 revolutions, when the existing Austro-Hungarian Empire was forced to become a federal union through public pressure. The Scottish Kingdom would not unite with the Irish for this reason - states simply did not come about because their rulers/people thought "hey, we have something in common, we should form a super-state". For that matter, the Irish for centuries were very disunited and feuding, and consistantly failed to form a unified state even when one King claimed the High Kingship. Their unification was first realised under English occupation. The Scots were similar to this, with constantly politicking and factioning nobles and Highland tribes with strong senses of tribe autonomy and independence, but they were all under the control of the Scottish Kings to some extent so it's less of an issue. If you want to bring about a unified Scots-Irish state you either need a lot of personal unions - highly unlikely given the Irish disposition for not uniting - or for one state (probably Scotland) to conquer the rest. Maybe a POD of Robert the Bruce's brother succeeding in his campaign to brush the English out of Ireland and to claim the High Kingship?
 
If a Scots/Irish alliance did conquer what is now England, then surely the seat of power would shift to the richer heartlands of England itself and the poeple of the Islands would eventaully evolve as today with the people holding what is now England as the most populous, richest part of the British Isles? Just as in our time lien english settlers eventually became "Amercians", then in this time line Scots-Irish would become "English" and probably resneted by those who stayed at "home".
 
As a Scotsman:

1) Our "tenacity". Yes, we have produced some fine soldiery, but you talk like it's genetic or something.

2) Our desire to unite with Ireland. Haw-haw-haw. Post-reformation, no chance. Pre-reformation... no chance, what with the lack of a coherent Irish state, the pre-existing English presence and the complete lack of motivation from either side.

3) Our conquering England. Hahahahahahahahaha!

One can dream!

Okay, seriously, mine is a small and rugged country, supporting a small (and rugged, if I do say so) population, whose natural resources are ideal for industrialisation but not up to much in the Middle Ages. Much of the land is unsuitable for large-scale settlement. England is vastly bigger, richer, more populous, and, well, everything.

For Ireland, take the above and multiply by ten. Seriously, what you are saying here is "What if Czechoslovakia stays united. Will it overrun and annex Germany, or simply reduce Germany to a minor power?" It's absurd. There's no comparison.

Anyway, what do we want with it? Full of Englishmen! We'll take Cumberland, which is ours anyway, really, and of course Berwick-upon-Tweed (revanche! revanche! revanche!) and they can keep the rest. :D

Also, your USA comments are not only irrelevant but also innaccurate. The Scots-Irish in America had no more knowledge of the backwoods than any other American and made no mor eilitary contribution. The officers and men of the British Army in America were, however, disproportionally Scots. So yeah.
 
Top