• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
This is a historically based question rather than the notion that we are effectively under Franco-Germanic Control within The EU.

How would we have fared if The British had been defeated here with the help of or by another foreign power and then we were under the effective control of that colonial power.

France
We hear a lot of their assistance to the United Irishmen. When General Humbert was defeated after his initial victories here, he even offered to have his troops round up the local Paddies for the victorious British
The French of this period were sons of The French Revolution and would have had no time for the superstitions of the local mucksavages/
They were also known as high taxers, which never goes down well.



Spain
If The Armada had won, they would probably have been the most benign colonist ruler of those likely.
However, their record in The Americas is atrocious and they did not distinguish themselves when in control of Belgium and The Netherlands.


Germany
Prior to the Home Rule Bill they were acting the bollex rightly supporting the Loyalists then during WW1 assisted the 1916 Rebellion.
At that stage they were mostly trying to get at The British as much as anything else.
My understanding is they had plans drawn up to place us under Austrian Control had they won WW!. As regards The Nazis well even Dev said their form of colonial oppression was worse than British Imperialism!




So how do you feel we would have fared under another colonial ruler other than the one we had?
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
We'd certainly still be speaking Irish. I think that's the most important consideration.
I don't think that's a given at all.
It is quite likely though that on eventual independence, we would be a unitary state rather than a partitioned one.
 

Frank Dempsey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
354
I don't think that's a given at all.
It is quite likely though that on eventual independence, we would be a unitary state rather than a partitioned one.

The French wouldn't have been in any position to force their language on us, even if they were ruling here. Same for the Spanish.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
The French wouldn't have been in any position to force their language on us, even if they were ruling here. Same for the Spanish.
French is a widely spoken language in all of its former colonies and Spanish is even the language of Equatorial Guinea, where they held sway.
Correction re French, it is not extensively spoken in Indochina now but It's prominent in Africa and of course Spanish is all over The Americas.
And unless The Nazis had won, we would all have to learn English in any case the same as the rest of the world.
I would think that The Irish language might be in a better position than it is today under French or Spanish Colonial control e.g. it would not have been in near competition with the most important language in the world and there may never have been damaging famines, which certainly hit Irish Speaking areas very hard back in the day.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
An interesting question. The most likely foreign influence other than the UK from our history would have been either France or Spain. If Napoelon had managed to open up a second line of attack and gain Irish ports and harbours as naval bases it would have quite likely changed the course of European history, never mind Irish.

We'd probably have had the Napoleonic code, some kind of lever-arch Prince or old General with Wild Geese connections being the 'Prime Minister' or President of the Republic of Ireland.

It might have been a good thing for us socially. The Napoleonic code has a lot to be said for it as a political and administrative system. I don't think the Spanish were strong enough or close enough to be as influential as France would have been.

I must admit as a Republican of the French school in my own preferred political thinking I may be biased here but France got a lot right as a Republic that we got wrong a hundred or more years later in my opinion.

I still look to France much more than anywhere else since the Roman Republic when thinking about political and administrative systems. France is often deprecated, mostly by purveyors of the Norman system of administration I notice, but it got a lot more right than it did wrong in my opinion, was the very bedrock of inspiration to the Founding Fathers of the United States and is still much to be admired I think.
 

omgsquared

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
795
An interesting question. The most likely foreign influence other than the UK from our history would have been either France or Spain. If Napoelon had managed to open up a second line of attack and gain Irish ports and harbours as naval bases it would have quite likely changed the course of European history, never mind Irish.

We'd probably have had the Napoleonic code, some kind of lever-arch Prince or old General with Wild Geese connections being the 'Prime Minister' or President of the Republic of Ireland.

It might have been a good thing for us socially. The Napoleonic code has a lot to be said for it as a political and administrative system. I don't think the Spanish were strong enough or close enough to be as influential as France would have been.

I must admit as a Republican of the French school in my own preferred political thinking I may be biased here but France got a lot right as a Republic that we got wrong a hundred or more years later in my opinion.

I still look to France much more than anywhere else since the Roman Republic when thinking about political and administrative systems. France is often deprecated, mostly by purveyors of the Norman system of administration I notice, but it got a lot more right than it did wrong in my opinion, was the very bedrock of inspiration to the Founding Fathers of the United States and is still much to be admired I think.
Also a great sense of style, cuisine and general elan .
Even the French underclass do not seem as barbaric as some of the English ,German or dare I say Irish.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,794
The French wouldn't have been in any position to force their language on us, even if they were ruling here. Same for the Spanish.

Well, since 1500 the french imposed french on brittany, alsace lorraine, the south of france (occitane). Quebec? Caribbean islands? Tahiti? Take your pick.

The spanish - south america was a long ways a way. All now speak spanish.

The germans - ask the czechs about that, or the poles.

The whole point of running / conquering a country is you are now king boss, and your society doesn't have to waste time learning a new language until it needs to marry local women, which is why the normans here started speaking middle irish by the 1300s.

In 1916 and before the rebels discussed appointing the kaiser's youngest son Joachim as king of ireland. He was a fluent english speaker and a great grandchild of the famine queen victoria... we picked and dropped our fights, didn't we?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
Thing is most of the royals around Europe were cousins of one sort or another or at least very connected by marriage. It became rather dodgy in the 1700s when there notable signs of the effect of intermarriage in a number of houses. The vast majority of nobles today were ennobled just after this period as the aristocracy was visibly going degenerate.

Fresh blood. But to the point in Victoria's day World War One would have been basically a family squabble.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
32,102
If Spain/France had taken over Ireland on a sustained basis it would have primarily been used as a base to facilitate military pincer movements against the UK. So looking at it purely from an Irish POV would be a mistake. It would have had pan-european impact.

Using France as an example, it's reasonable to assume Napoleon would use the base as a method to attack the English rather than the illfated trip east into Russia.

But then the Russians would still have come west to preemptively defend themselves. Ultimately it's hard to see how Napoleon (Just as with Hitler a century later) could have held all these different countries with an unhappy populace for any sustained period of time.

So probably? When it all inevitably collapsed, my instinct says we'd be closer to the UK as we'd view them as having helped us escape the yoke of the French, which would have led to closer relations, a union etc etc.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
That was one of the divides among the United Irishmen in 1798 and ensuing dark years I believe from my scanty enough reading of the era. Some wanted to offer Ireland to Napoleon with all that entailed, others wanted an Irish based aristo as ruler, others wanted a Republic independent of the influence of England or France.

The United Irishmen was easily one of the most complex and probably most interesting episodes in our history. It was a sort of rainbow coalition across class and religious lines which was unusual in itself. Perhaps the broadest church ever proposed in Irish political affairs.

But there were those within the United Irishmen who saw Napoleon as an equal threat to Ireland as Westminster, no doubt. So many factions under one coalition umbrella. Very Italian in a way but bound to fail given the number of informers in the tent in the end.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
5,214
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Spain
If The Armada had won, they would probably have been the most benign colonist ruler of those likely.
However, their record in The Americas is atrocious and they did not distinguish themselves when in control of Belgium and The Netherlands.
If the Armada had 'won', what would that mean, and what could have been the consequence?

Medina Sidonia's mission was to deliver his fleet to Spanish Flanders, to combine with the Duke of Parma's land forces, and to launch an invasion of England. At no point in the advance up the Channel had the Spanish sought a full engagement with the English ships.

So, we conceive a situation where the Armada arrives at Flushing, embarks Palma's troops, and ... then?

The Spanish have first to get past the Dutch fly-boats of Justus von Nassau, avoid engaging with the French, cope with the sandbanks, see off the English at an alternative battle of Gravelines, and arrive somewhere in the south-east of England, on unknown territory, with sea-sick land troops. Where they are met by four thousand of the Earl of Leicester's militia.

Somehow Leicester is defeated in a pitched battle — quite possible, but we cannot calculate the weight of artillery on either side. Palma then presumably marches on London, the most enthusiastically protestant community in the land.

It will now be necessary to impose Spanish control on an enemy population. King Philip II of England has his second coronation (perhaps by proxy). The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has already declared against the Armada: the Border lairds are getting antsy. However committed to Roman Catholicism elements of the English population might appear to have been (and at this time English Catholicism owed far more to Douai, and looked to France, than to Salamanca), they are now suppressed, the aristocracy elbowed aside by Dons speaking a foreign tongue ... whereupon enter the Inquisición española.

OK: all that achieved, and with Henry IV of France blasé about his kingdom now sandwiched north, south and in Flanders, on to Ireland.

Where, at first, there might be a rousing welcome. Or not. Even where French troops may be ready and waiting to contest the country.

Irish Roman Catholicism was (and always is) subtly different in flavour: around 1590 it becomes dragooned into the strait-jacket of the Inquisition, policed by Franciscans, a few thousand imported priests, and a couple of hundred Jesuits. Heretics are burned: the Inquisición was as political as it was strictly orthodox. Any Jews are expelled (to where?). All those land-hungry Irish rejoice — until they find themselves subject to Spanish land-lords, who needed to be rewarded for their service.

Oh, and the small problem of how Philip II finances all this: the third bankruptcy of the Spanish exchequer had been in 1576.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
That's the hint we've been working on for about 1400 years now. We'll get there.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
We needed the omelettes.
 

Frank Dempsey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
354
Well, since 1500 the french imposed french on brittany, alsace lorraine, the south of france (occitane). Quebec? Caribbean islands? Tahiti? Take your pick.

The spanish - south america was a long ways a way. All now speak spanish.

The germans - ask the czechs about that, or the poles.

The whole point of running / conquering a country is you are now king boss, and your society doesn't have to waste time learning a new language until it needs to marry local women, which is why the normans here started speaking middle irish by the 1300s.

In 1916 and before the rebels discussed appointing the kaiser's youngest son Joachim as king of ireland. He was a fluent english speaker and a great grandchild of the famine queen victoria... we picked and dropped our fights, didn't we?

Different situations. It's easy to impose your language on territory right beside you, most difficult overseas - it took the English the most of 700 years to violently impose English on Ireland. As for Quebec, that was a colonization of French speakers. I doubt if the French would have attempted to colonize Ireland. Of course it's not impossible, but much less likely.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,794
If the Armada had 'won', what would that mean, and what could have been the consequence?

//

Oh, and the small problem of how Philip II finances all this: the third bankruptcy of the Spanish exchequer had been in 1576.

Malc, can we step over all that difficult stuff and get to when the first irish pope would have been elected?
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,794
Different situations. It's easy to impose your language on territory right beside you, most difficult overseas - it took the English the most of 700 years to violently impose English on Ireland. As for Quebec, that was a colonization of French speakers. I doubt if the French would have attempted to colonize Ireland. Of course it's not impossible, but much less likely.

It must have been unlikely to the algerians in 1830, but then millions of pied noirs came over, and 99% had to leave in 1962.

Also overseas, also a "rival" culture. We had 2 rival-to-french languages being spoken here in the 1700s.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom