• 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!

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
All calculations need to consider:
  • why Elizabeth's non-navy was able to see off the Spanish fleet (not least vessels more suited to northern waters, and those mass-produced cannon from Sussex iron-masters);
  • why the Agricultural Revolution in England spawned an industrial one (spare labour, the coincidence of coal and iron at the very moment when coal technology was taking off);
  • why England, from Scottish know-how, developed sources of energy (i.e. steam technology);
  • why England adapted and exploited Dutch liberal-capitalism;
  • why other national economies across Europe didn't;
  • why North America went Anglo-, not Latino- (which also meant no London-based power could tolerate foreign interests sitting a-top of Atlantic trade routes) and
  • why Spain, of all contenders, was floundering by the seventeenth century, and effectively a failed state by the nineteenth.
In short, any fantasies of Spanish-controlled Ireland, and some golden age beneath the strict control of Salamancan priests, is for las Aves (in both senses).
I agree that a Spanish hold on Ireland would likely have been very tenuous and short-lived for lots of reasons, distance and the deterioration of Spanish leadership by the late 17th century from its height of perhaps a hundred years earlier would all have conspired against an adequate foothold in Ireland.

They did have a tendency to paint a red cross on their sails and hope for the best at times, their military and navy was stuffed with minor sons of the nobility and every promotion or mission granted from the court was a political nightmare.

It is arguable that the finest victories the Royal Navy ever had were led by commanders who had merit as commanders, whether like Cochrane they had come in through the hawse-hole rather than by patronage, meaning they end up as Admirals having been Able Seaman when they started out.

It can be argued that as soon as the qualification level to be able to stand a watch as an officer changed from being examined in seamanship by a sitting of Captains at the Admiralty to pass for second Lieuftenant on a Royal Navy vessel the requirements changed around the end of the 18th century and a young lad had also to 'pass as a gentleman' that a similar deterioration began in the Royal Navy, away from merit and toward social standing.

This would have meant Nelson would have scraped past as the son of a Norfolk landowner and some schooling whereas Cochrane would not have passed and would have remained a Master at best. And there is a school of thought that said Nelson was a fine leader of men (the 'Nelson touch') whereas Cochrane was a sailor's sailor and great tactician.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,792
I agree that a Spanish hold on Ireland would likely have been very tenuous and short-lived for lots of reasons, distance and the deterioration of Spanish leadership by the late 17th century from its height of perhaps a hundred years earlier would all have conspired against an adequate foothold in Ireland.

They did have a tendency to paint a red cross on their sails and hope for the best at times, their military and navy was stuffed with minor sons of the nobility and every promotion or mission granted from the court was a political nightmare.

It is arguable that the finest victories the Royal Navy ever had were led by commanders who had merit as commanders, whether like Cochrane they had come in through the hawse-hole rather than by patronage, meaning they end up as Admirals having been Able Seaman when they started out.

It can be argued that as soon as the qualification level to be able to stand a watch as an officer changed from being examined in seamanship by a sitting of Captains at the Admiralty to pass for second Lieuftenant on a Royal Navy vessel the requirements changed around the end of the 18th century and a young lad had also to 'pass as a gentleman' that a similar deterioration began in the Royal Navy, away from merit and toward social standing.

This would have meant Nelson would have scraped past as the son of a Norfolk landowner and some schooling whereas Cochrane would not have passed and would have remained a Master at best. And there is a school of thought that said Nelson was a fine leader of men (the 'Nelson touch') whereas Cochrane was a sailor's sailor and great tactician.
Cochrane was an aristocrat. Higher born than Nelson. Also daring as a ship’s captain and as an innovator but as commander of a fleet?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
Cochrane was an aristocrat. Higher born than Nelson. Also daring as a ship’s captain and as an innovator but as commander of a fleet?
Must be mixing him up with another. I'll try to recall but thanks for the correction. Just thinking about it Nelson and Cochrane would have passed via the Captains examination and would not have had to 'pass as gentlemen' which became more prevalent when Nelson already had been a Commodore, and Cochrane some decades before that I think.

Nelson certainly wouldn't have had the patronage of a senior naval officer to count on when he started as his people were farmers rather than having anything to do with the sea. Respectable enough but not a 'county family' if that makes sense? Many young officers had relatives who were senior officers so I suppose they must have ended up with their fair share of nephew-eejits to suffer.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
5,215
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Cochrane was an aristocrat. Higher born than Nelson. Also daring as a ship’s captain and as an innovator but as commander of a fleet?
For many years Cochrane was not available for promotion to Admiral: he refused an appointment for fourteen years until he was restored to the Order of the Bath.Not just a seaman, he spent his time on science and technology (something he inherited from his father). He:
  • had used kites to put propaganda ashore (1805);
  • had innovated the use of Congreve rockets at Ciotat (September 1808);
  • used exploding vessels at Basque Roads (1809);
  • was way ahead of the curve in advocating the use of steam power (the Rising Star for the Chilean Navy, and steam ships for the Greek Navy);
  • solved Marc Brunel's problem with water and mud ingress on the Thames tunnel (compressed air);
  • came up with a steam rotary engine to power his own boat on the Thames; the Liverpool and Manchester Railway looked at the scheme as an improvement on Stephenson's Rocket; the Admiralty took on Cchrane's rotary as as alternative to a reciprocating engine in the experimental Firefly;
  • was granted patents on steam engines and screw propellers — his Janus worked well, but was unseaworthy (a fault of the naval architect, not the mechanics);
  • he outlived most of his critics, and knew how to cultivate the likes of Captain Marryat and liberal politicians to become recognised as both the liberator of oppressed nations and the last survivor of the Nelson navy;
  • he retired from the navy as a full admiral, serving until June 1851, at the age of seventy-five.
  • his copious notes recorded the decline of the Newfoundland fisheries (and the reasons why), the state of naval hospitals in Port Royal (and how to improve them), took samples of bitumen from Trinidad, with a view to using it as a compound for coal;
  • In the end, he had young Queen Vicky rooting for him and restoring him to the Order of the Bath.

Not bad, huh?
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,529
France would have been better? nicer food, no Protestants and no Brits
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,792
For many years Cochrane was not available for promotion to Admiral: he refused an appointment for fourteen years until he was restored to the Order of the Bath.Not just a seaman, he spent his time on science and technology (something he inherited from his father). He:
  • had used kites to put propaganda ashore (1805);
  • had innovated the use of Congreve rockets at Ciotat (September 1808);
  • used exploding vessels at Basque Roads (1809);
  • was way ahead of the curve in advocating the use of steam power (the Rising Star for the Chilean Navy, and steam ships for the Greek Navy);
  • solved Marc Brunel's problem with water and mud ingress on the Thames tunnel (compressed air);
  • came up with a steam rotary engine to power his own boat on the Thames; the Liverpool and Manchester Railway looked at the scheme as an improvement on Stephenson's Rocket; the Admiralty took on Cchrane's rotary as as alternative to a reciprocating engine in the experimental Firefly;
  • was granted patents on steam engines and screw propellers — his Janus worked well, but was unseaworthy (a fault of the naval architect, not the mechanics);
  • he outlived most of his critics, and knew how to cultivate the likes of Captain Marryat and liberal politicians to become recognised as both the liberator of oppressed nations and the last survivor of the Nelson navy;
  • he retired from the navy as a full admiral, serving until June 1851, at the age of seventy-five.
  • his copious notes recorded the decline of the Newfoundland fisheries (and the reasons why), the state of naval hospitals in Port Royal (and how to improve them), took samples of bitumen from Trinidad, with a view to using it as a compound for coal;
  • In the end, he had young Queen Vicky rooting for him and restoring him to the Order of the Bath.

Not bad, huh?
.....and an ITV miniseries and film with ten Oscar nominations to boot.

Accepting his considerable innovative works and his undoubted daring do, I question if he really should be included in Lumpy’s great hall of great naval commanders.

He seems to have fallen out with pretty much everyone he had dealings with. A man of fearsome conflicts with both friends and foe. That’s fine as ships Captain were direct contact can command the respect and admiration of those aboard, provided one is supremely capable. However, as a fleet commander with a more tenuous control over the other components under your command, that’s not so good. I think Nelson’s band of brothers, his fellow officers within his command, had a notably different relationship with him than Cochrane had with his subordinates. Nelson description to Emma Hamilton, of his officers reaction to his pre battle plan at Trafalgar...

‘...it was like an electric shock. Some shed tears, all approved - “It was new - it was singular - it was simple”, and, from admirals downwards, it was repeated - “It must succeed, if ever they allow us to get at them! You are, my Lord, surrounded by friends whom you inspire with confidence.” ’

I doubt anyone would ever had something similar about Cochrane. Nelson was a force that bound his collection of ships and men into a cohesive yet flexible unit and that is what sets him apart from a maverick individualist such as Cochrane.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
5,215
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
France would have been better? nicer food, no Protestants and no Brits
Neat, if glib.

The food thing is quite recent. Henri IV's famous:
I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday
suggests considerable poverty and hunger. Auguste Escoffier belongs to the era of conspicuous consumption, and an élite carried by trains to the Midi. For Michelin stars, the world had to wait for ubiquitous motor travel (1926, if my memory serves). Not all French cuisine meets those standards.

France suffered appalling famines in 1693 and 1709; and the French Revolution is often (and probably correctly) linked to the hard winter of 1788, starvation across the countryside and bread riots in Paris and the cities. That, in turn, generated anti-clericism, because the Church was seen in cahoots with the land-owners and the landowners were wrongly held responsible for with-holding corn from the markets — in fact, the problem was a growing population but agricultural developments lagged.

As for uniformity of religion, Graham Robb has this (chapter 7):
The only certainty seems to be that France was a Catholic country, in the sense that it was not a Protestant country. Even this distinction is not as illuminating as it sounds. The military campaign against the Protestants of the Cévennes after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) had some popular support, and at the time of the Revolution there were people in the regions of Toulouse and Nîmes who believed that the Edict of Toleration (1787) and the oath to the Constitution (1790–91) were part of a Protestant plot. Fifty years later, in Nîmes and Montpellier, particularly among the bourgeoisie, the old religious divide was reflected in political allegiance, place of residence and choice of wife or husband. But there are just as many signs of religious tolerance and indifference. In the early 1800s, priests in the Bordelais and the Périgord were distressed to see Catholics and Protestants ‘showing mutual affection’. ‘Mixed’ churches in Alsace, where the choir was reserved for Catholics and closed off with a curtain or a grille during the Protestant service, were still in use in the 1860s. Several Catholic communities in the Auvergne, the Limousin and the Périgord converted to Protestantism overnight when the Church became too demanding, meddlesome and expensive.
Robb then goes on to consider how paganism and idol-veneration persisted.

All ignoring the extent of persecution needed to achieve even that result. I'm sure silverharp isn't arguing that persecution is not what matters, it's just a matter of who persecutes whom.

Allow me to remain unconvinced that any colonialism of Ireland by an external power would ever be benign or a 'good thing'.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,529
Neat, if glib.

The food thing is quite recent. Henri IV's famous:
I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday
suggests considerable poverty and hunger. Auguste Escoffier belongs to the era of conspicuous consumption, and an élite carried by trains to the Midi. For Michelin stars, the world had to wait for ubiquitous motor travel (1926, if my memory serves). Not all French cuisine meets those standards.

France suffered appalling famines in 1693 and 1709; and the French Revolution is often (and probably correctly) linked to the hard winter of 1788, starvation across the countryside and bread riots in Paris and the cities. That, in turn, generated anti-clericism, because the Church was seen in cahoots with the land-owners and the landowners were wrongly held responsible for with-holding corn from the markets — in fact, the problem was a growing population but agricultural developments lagged.

As for uniformity of religion, Graham Robb has this (chapter 7):
The only certainty seems to be that France was a Catholic country, in the sense that it was not a Protestant country. Even this distinction is not as illuminating as it sounds. The military campaign against the Protestants of the Cévennes after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) had some popular support, and at the time of the Revolution there were people in the regions of Toulouse and Nîmes who believed that the Edict of Toleration (1787) and the oath to the Constitution (1790–91) were part of a Protestant plot. Fifty years later, in Nîmes and Montpellier, particularly among the bourgeoisie, the old religious divide was reflected in political allegiance, place of residence and choice of wife or husband. But there are just as many signs of religious tolerance and indifference. In the early 1800s, priests in the Bordelais and the Périgord were distressed to see Catholics and Protestants ‘showing mutual affection’. ‘Mixed’ churches in Alsace, where the choir was reserved for Catholics and closed off with a curtain or a grille during the Protestant service, were still in use in the 1860s. Several Catholic communities in the Auvergne, the Limousin and the Périgord converted to Protestantism overnight when the Church became too demanding, meddlesome and expensive.
Robb then goes on to consider how paganism and idol-veneration persisted.

All ignoring the extent of persecution needed to achieve even that result. I'm sure silverharp isn't arguing that persecution is not what matters, it's just a matter of who persecutes whom.

Allow me to remain unconvinced that any colonialism of Ireland by an external power would ever be benign or a 'good thing'.
its a lesser evils thing , its unlikely the North of Ireland would all speaking French today with some 6 counties Quebec sthick and French cuisine might have rubbed off a bit more
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
Allow me to remain unconvinced that any colonialism of Ireland by an external power would ever be benign or a 'good thing'.
Well having France or Spain as our big boss might have become analogous to the partnership which evolved between England and Scotland rather than particular savagery inflicted by the big boss!
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
Ireland under Spain, would our rebels be assisting Basque, Catalan and Galician Equivalents?

Ireland under France, would our rebels be assisting Breton and Corsican Equivalents?
 

Freemind

Active member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
118
France would have been better? nicer food, no Protestants and no Brits
The Normans came from France you idiot, then they came to Ireland as newborn brits. The Huguenots were protestant and French. Ireland is now a Protestant state. The boy abusing church is no longer controlling our minds.
 

Freemind

Active member
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
118
On reading the headline, one would assume that some Irish are desperate to be under the thumb of some Colonial ruler.
Rather sad really,
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
No one said anything about 'desperation' or being 'under the thumb'. That's just the way you chose to view it. At no point on this thread has anyone advocated seeking a new Mummy.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,529
The Normans came from France you idiot, then they came to Ireland as newborn brits. The Huguenots were protestant and French. Ireland is now a Protestant state. The boy abusing church is no longer controlling our minds.
Its always good to lead with an insult, you will go far on this site. So explain to me genius where the Norman ghettos are in Ireland? or did they assimilate perhaps, anyway on your way, I don't need a rehash of 1st year school history
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
5,215
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Norman ghetto - King's Inn.
Let's take it gently.

Guillaume le Bâtarde's conquest of England brought (according to estimates) at most eight thousand Normans. Those were diffused into a population of rather less than two million. Although Norman French was the language of government until the mid-fourteen century, and Latin the language of the church (remembering the church was the main provider of civil servants), English remains a Germanic-based language, and around a quarter of modern English vocabulary derives from Germanic originals. About another quarter of modern English vocabulary comes from Romance languages (because those were the sources of the ideas behind the words).

The numbers of invaders in AD1169-71 were much smaller. The linguistic domination also much smaller, slower but equally inevitable.

I'm suggesting, therefore, that any 'conquest by language' thing is largely irrelevant. Trade and commerce, surely, are more important in determining the prevalence of a language at street level. After 1066 and 1169 what made the difference were the growing towns as a focus for economic activity — and therefore the need for 'pidgin' vernaculars to facilitate trade. The loose and uninflected grammar of modern English reflects that.

On top of that functional inter-action comes the 'refined', even 'abstracted' version of the language — written rather than oral— which is the property of the educated fraction. Until mass education and literacy evolved (and that's only the last 150 years or so), there would have been two very different 'registers'. There still are.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
Was listening to Newstalk and apparently while Britain got Danish Vikings leading to tall blondes, we got Norwegian ones leading to dark haired grumps!
We in The West of Ireland always say that it was The Spanish Armada that populated the area, well they must have been extremely horny bastards!
But apparently, it was Norwegian Vikings who planted their seed here!
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
Could have been worse, and it would explain a lot. They might have been Finns. Norwegians are quite weird but very sociable I've found, quite eccentric. But the Finns I've encountered- weird. Even the Scandinavian countries are in awe of the general weirdness of Finns.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
16,016
Could have been worse, and it would explain a lot. They might have been Finns. Norwegians are quite weird but very sociable I've found, quite eccentric. But the Finns I've encountered- weird. Even the Scandinavian countries are in awe of the general weirdness of Finns.
Are we not weird as a race!
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom