Invasion 1169



Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,968
You don't know much then - Henry II was king of England.

It was in England's name that Ireland was invaded and is still occupied - not France.

The so-called lordship of Ireland was a later artificial construct, created for the son of Henry.

These foreigners never ruled Ireland at that time - their occupation was confined to the 'Pale'.
The lands conquered by the Normans were initially very extensive..... most of Leinster, most of Munster, large areas of Ulster and significant outposts in Connaught. Claiming that they were confined to an area around Dublin is blatantly incorrect.

The shrinkage of the Lordship to the Pale happened during the 14th and 15th centuries.
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,636
The lands conquered by the Normans were initially very extensive..... most of Leinster, most of Munster, large areas of Ulster and significant outposts in Connaught. Claiming that they were confined to an area around Dublin is blatantly incorrect.

The shrinkage of the Lordship to the Pale happened during the 14th and 15th centuries.
Always wrong - but never in doubt, it seems.

The foreigners were beaten back within a few years - before the treaty of windsor (1175) - hence the treaty of windsor.

The foreigners broke that treaty, making it null and void - it was then the foreigners moved out from their base in Dublin once again.

And by the way, Irish people spell Connacht c-o-n-n-a-c-h-t - English people spell it Connaught.
 
Last edited:

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,681
As far as I know, Henry II styled himself Lord of Ireland, making Ireland part of his dominions, as he was also Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Anjou, Maine, and Nantes, all in modern France. Henry was more a Frenchman than an Englishman.

No one disputed his title, and after Ruadri Ó Conchobhair died, no one else claimed an All-Ireland title, except for Edward Bruce, who was also an interloper. Irish separatism did not re-appear in the country until Wolfe Tone.

This de facto Lordship was fine, in the system in force at the time. By today's standards, it is shocking and irregular, I agree, but not in the rough-and-ready semi-barbaric feudal system.
It wasn't as clear-cut and black and white as claiming titles, whether they were local or national. The native concept of common-ownership continued to exist parallel to the foreign concept, and persisted all the way through to era of the 1916 Rising, and it's quite clear from the summaries below where Connolly got his Socialism from, and the influence the Gaelic Land System had on the Irish Socialist Republican Party, and indeed on the Irish Proclamation..

Margaret & Martyn Bennett - A Theàrlaich òig

“Before the time of the conquest, the Irish people knew nothing of absolute property in land. The land belonged to the entire sept; the chief was little more than managing member of the association. The feudal idea which came in with the conquest was associated with foreign dominion, and has never to this day been recognized by the moral sentiment of the people.”

Clan Donald Heritage

'The MacIains of Glencoe were a small branch of Clan Donald descended from Iain Fraochor Iain of the heather and those who followed him. Glencoe was among the lands granted Angus Og by Robert the Bruce. Iain Fraoch was a younger son of Angus Og and founder of this small, but scrappy branch. They lived in almost isolation scattered up the glen known for its haunting beauty even before it became the unwilling scene of the Highland’s most infamous “Murder Under Trust”.

The MacIains of Glencoe were the victims of the most infamous massacre in Scottish history. Even more than the other branches of Clan Donald, the people of Glencoe were isolated and slower to change than the world around them. While other clan chiefs were converting to the Saxon feudal lord system, the MacIain chiefs presided in the old Celtic sense even into the 17th century, living among their people more like a father than a feudal lord.'

James Connolly - Labour in Irish History

As we have pointed out elsewhere native Irish civilisation disappeared, for all practical purposes, with the defeat of the Insurrection of 1641 and the break-up of the Kilkenny Confederation. This great Insurrection marked the last appearance of the Irish clan system, founded upon common property and a democratic social organisation, as a rival to the politico-social order of capitalist feudalism founded upon the political despotism of the proprietors, and the political and the social slavery of the actual producers. In the course of this Insurrection the Anglo-Irish noblemen, who held Irish tribelands as their private property under the English feudal system, did indeed throw in their lot with the native Irish tribesmen, but the union was never a cordial one, and their presence in the councils of the insurgents was at all times a fruitful source of dissension, treachery and incapacity. Professing to fight for Catholicity, they, in reality, sought only to preserve their right to the lands they held as the result of previous confiscations, from the very men, or the immediate ancestors of the men, by whose side they were fighting. They feared confiscation from the new generation of Englishmen if the insurrection was defeated, and they feared confiscation at the hands of the insurgent clansmen if the insurrection was successful.

In the vacillation and treachery arising out of this state of mind can be found the only explanation for the defeat of this magnificent movement of the Irish clans, a movement which had attained to such proportions that it held sway over and made laws for the greater part of Ireland, issued its own coinage, had its own fleet, and issued letters of marque to foreign privateers, made treaties with foreign nations, and levied taxes for the support of its several armies fighting under its flag. The fact that it had enrolled under its banner the representatives of two different social systems contained the germs of its undoing. Had it been all feudal it would have succeeded in creating an independent Ireland, albeit with a serf population like that of England at the time; had it been all composed of the ancient septs it would have crushed the English power and erected a really free Ireland, but as it was but a hybrid, composed of both, it had all the faults of both and the strength of neither, and hence went down in disaster. With its destruction, and the following massacres, expropriations and dispersion of the native Irish, the Irish clans disappear finally from history.

James Connolly: Erin's Hope

Ireland before the Conquest

The Irish Socialist Republican Party was founded in Dublin in 1896 by a few workingmen whom the author had succeeded in interesting in his proposition that the two currents of revolutionary thought in Ireland – the Socialist and the National – were not antagonistic, but complementary, and that the Irish Socialist was in reality the best Irish patriot, but that in order to convince the Irish people of that fact he must first of all learn to look inward upon Ireland for his justification, rest his arguments upon the facts of Irish history, and be the champion against the subjection of Ireland and all that it implies. That the Irish National question was at bottom an economic question, and that the economic struggle must first be able to function freely nationally before it could function internationally, and as Socialists were opposed to all oppression, so they should ever be foremost in the daily battle against all its manifestations, social and political. As the embodiment of this teaching, the party adopted the watchword, Irish Socialist Republic, and by deduction therefrom, the aforementioned name of their organization.

This policy received its formal endorsement by the International Socialist movement when at the International Socialist Congress at Paris in 1900 the delegates of the I.S.R.P. were formally seated as the delegates of a nation separate from England.

The Re-Conquest of Ireland

Before we can talk of or develop a policy for the re-conquest of Ireland it is well that we picture clearly to our mind the essential feature of the conquest itself, how far it went, and how far it has already been reversed. Let it be remembered, then, that the conquest was two-fold—social and political. It was the imposition upon Ireland of an alien rule in political matters and of a social system equally alien and even more abhorrent.

In the picturesque phrase of Fintan Lalor it meant the ‘conquest of our liberties and the conquest of our lands’. The lands being the material basis of life, alike of conquerors and conquered, whosoever held those lands was master of the lives and liberties of the nation. The full extent of that mastery, that conquest, is best seen by the record of the Cromwellian settlement in 1654. In that settlement the conquest reached its highest and completest point. Never before, and never again, were the lives and liberties of the people of Ireland so completely at the mercy of foreign masters as during the period in question.

Dublin in the 20th century


Someone has said that the most deplorable feature of Irish life is the apparent lack of civic consciousness. It is, indeed, strange that the people of a nation, which has shown indomitable determination in its struggle for the possession of the mere machinery of government, should exhibit so little capacity to breathe a civic soul into such portions of the machinery as they had already brought under their control. That this phenomenon is explicable in a manner not at all to the discredit of the citizens of the towns and cities of Ireland is quite true, but true also is it that a full and generous admission of the adverse influences that have hindered or retarded the development of a civic or municipal, as distinguished from an aggressive or even selfsacrificing national patriotism, does not absolve those citizens from the duty of labouring to overcome our national failing in this respect. An Irish municipality elected by the male and female voters under the present suffrage ought to be, in its public activities, breadth of outlook, and comprehensive- ness of ambition for the social well-being and mental enrichment of its inhabitants, a centre of pride to the Irish race, and a shining example of the possibilities of the future of Ireland under free and self-governing institutions.
 

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,681
The Pale was a far later development. It did not exist in the 12th century.
It depends on what you mean by 'the Pale.' As far as I'm aware, there was settlements on the banks of An Ruirthech, the Liffy, stetching back a lot further than the 1st recorded Viking settlement. 988 is the official date, and I think it was roughly three time the width it is now. Ptolemy identified a river in the area in the 2nd century, which again suggests activity in the area. In the Fionn and Oisin stories a battle is recorded in north Dublin. The point being that the Fionn-Gall and the Fionn-Lochlannaigh may be two separate groups who arrived at two completely different periods. The Welsh had a similar Fair-headed people who were definitely not German or Saxons. If there was an oversight by Gaelic-ethnographers, it could mean that what we loosely define as Vikings arrived much earlier than we originally believed. The 'Pale' can conjure up images of a wall being built around a new settlement, or one that came from the Vikings in the 10th century: That wipes out a possible 800 years of history, possibly more. If the Bear-Cults arrived in Clare 10,000 BC, it's not completely implausible that there was traffic between Scandinavia and Ireland between then and the official date the Vikings established Dublin. Although it's coming from the other direction, the Carthagians had traveled at least as far as Cornwall in 600 BC, and in 50 BC, Caesar credited the same network of people with having superior ships to the Romans. The point being that the technology existed for regular trips between Ireland and Scandinavia. I'm nearly sure that battle in north Dublin I'm referring to is recorded as 200 AD or thereabouts, because it struck me as odd that they were described as foreigners. This is 800 years before Mael Seachnaill defeated the Vikings in the 10th century.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,968
Talking about The Pale in relation to 12th century Ireland is an anachronistic use of the term; Pale, an archaic word for a stake, is derived from the Latin palus. The earliest known use the term in an Irish context dates from 1495 when Parliament sitting in Drogheda passed an act titled as “Ditches to be made about the English Pale”. I think it can be taken from that sentence that the notion of English Pale existed prior to this parliament. However, it’s particularly interesting to note that present at this parliament was the newly appointed Lord Deputy, Edward Poynings. Prior to his appointment he was a senior military commander in Calais and after 1493 it’s Governor. Calais had a fortified perimeter, the Pale of Calais. The earliest known use of this term dates 1494. The near coincidence of dates and the common presence and command of Poynings seems very significant.

That there a distinction between the hinterland around Dublin and the rest of the country is obvious. That there was a militarised frontier before the first use of term Pale is also obvious. However, those distinctions did not come to be until after the Norman colony began to decline in the late 13th century.

The English Pale:a ‘failed entity’?
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
837
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
Dublin was a developing urban environment before the Vikings wintered over in 841AD

- it was already a focal point of interaction within Ireland

- the Vikings ensured that it also took on a nautical locus as well.

By the time of the Anglo-Norman Invasion it was the most important city in Ireland

- a status it has never lost.
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,636
Talking about The Pale in relation to 12th century Ireland is an anachronistic use of the term; Pale, an archaic word for a stake, is derived from the Latin palus. The earliest known use the term in an Irish context dates from 1495 when Parliament sitting in Drogheda passed an act titled as “Ditches to be made about the English Pale”. I think it can be taken from that sentence that the notion of English Pale existed prior to this parliament. However, it’s particularly interesting to note that present at this parliament was the newly appointed Lord Deputy, Edward Poynings. Prior to his appointment he was a senior military commander in Calais and after 1493 it’s Governor. Calais had a fortified perimeter, the Pale of Calais. The earliest known use of this term dates 1494. The near coincidence of dates and the common presence and command of Poynings seems very significant.

That there a distinction between the hinterland around Dublin and the rest of the country is obvious. That there was a militarised frontier before the first use of term Pale is also obvious. However, those distinctions did not come to be until after the Norman colony began to decline in the late 13th century.

The English Pale:a ‘failed entity’?
Be that as it may - Irish people refer to Dublin as the 'Pale' to this day, no matter what date it came into being. "Beyond the Pale" is a common phrase in Ireland used to denote something that is unacceptable..

And what is unacceptable about your posts is that you post as if England had some right to invade and occupy Ireland - which it did not.

The people of Ireland did not appoint any so-called Lord Deputy. England had no right to interfere in the affairs of Ireland. England had no mandate in Ireland. Its erroneous claim on Ireland is illegal and fraudulent.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,047
I hope you are not Irish because you would be embarrassing to proper Irish people. England did not claim Ireland under 'Right of Conquest'.

Even back then, the King of England knew that might was not right - hence the English King, Henry II and the English Pope, Adrian IV, conspiring to steal Irish land using the excuse of the reform the Irish church, and concocting a fraudulent 'Papal Bull' based on the forged 4th-century 'Donation of Constantine' in an attempt to cover their arses on the world stage for the invasion and occupation of Ireland.

If "might was right", the King of England would not have felt the need to lie, and to then seek a treaty with the High King of Ireland, the Ó Conchobhair. A treaty (Treaty of Windsor 1175) that England broke - per usual - making the treaty null and void.

England's claim to Ireland is illegal and fraudulent. England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did.

Irish people around here (if these posters are even Irish) need to lose the "Slave Mind", grow a pair of balls, and stop looking at Ireland from our historical and hereditary enemy, England's point of view.
Henry's Lordship of Ireland was as real as his Kingship of England. It was based on de facto power politics, the same as empowered the Normans to conquer Southern Italy and Sicily.

There are double standards to all this ... our modern standards, under which these conquests are not legitimate, and the standards of the 12th century, when a sufficiently strong conqueror could make them stick. The Kings of England claimed legal title to the Kingship of France for hundreds of years, and only gave it up in the time of Napoleon. Their problem was that they were never strong enough to make the claim stick.

But, for you, "Let's Do The Time Warp Again!".
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,636
Henry's Lordship of Ireland was as real as his Kingship of England. It was based on de facto power politics, the same as empowered the Normans to conquer Southern Italy and Sicily.

There are double standards to all this ... our modern standards, under which these conquests are not legitimate, and the standards of the 12th century, when a sufficiently strong conqueror could make them stick. The Kings of England claimed legal title to the Kingship of France for hundreds of years, and only gave it up in the time of Napoleon. Their problem was that they were never strong enough to make the claim stick.

But, for you, "Let's Do The Time Warp Again!".
Where did I say it was not real???

I posted it was illegal and fraudulent. England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did.

BECAUSE...

1/ Diarmait Mac Murchadha, the ousted RI of Leinster, who sought England's help in regaining the land he once ruled, had no right under Irish Law to offer any Irish land, or kingship to Strongbow - because under Irish law, the land belonged to the Clan, and Kingship was not hereditary.

2/ England's claim to Ireland, namely, the reform the Irish church by assuming control of Ireland, was fraudulent - an English Pope, Adrian IV and an English King, Henry II, conspiring to steal Irish land, had NO authority, moral or legal. The scrap of paper England claimed was a Papal Bull, the 'Laudabiliter', was based on the 'Donation of Constantine' - and the 'Laudabiliter' was deemed a forgery, and now is nowhere to be found.

3/ The 'Donation of Constantine' - was also a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor, Constantine the Great, supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire (which Ireland was never a part of) to a Pope - again making England's illegal and fraudulent claim on Ireland a moot non-point.

All you anglophiles can knock yourselves out posting about whether the weather was sunny or cloudy the day England invaded and occupied Ireland - the salient point here is that England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did.

Let that sink into the cabbages that hold yer ears apart.
 
Last edited:

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,681
Dublin was a developing urban environment before the Vikings wintered over in 841AD

- it was already a focal point of interaction within Ireland

- the Vikings ensured that it also took on a nautical locus as well.

By the time of the Anglo-Norman Invasion it was the most important city in Ireland

- a status it has never lost.
From the Annals of Ulster:

"Tiernan O'Rourke, King of Brefni and Conmacne, a man of great power for a long time, was killed by the Saxons, and by Donnell, son of Annah O'Rourke of his own clan, along with them. He was beheaded by them, and his head and body were carried to Dublin. The head was raised over the gate of the fortress, a sore and miserable sight for the Gael. The body was hung in another place with the feet upwards." - Nicholas Furlong, Dermot, King of Leinster & the Foreigners

The English, or Anglo-Normans, certainly understood its importance in the 12th century, which is why they brought the dead body of Tiernan O'Rourke there from Meath, and used his head as a symbol of their dominance, in order to terrorize the rest of the populace into submission.
 

Antóin Mac Comháin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
3,681
1/ Diarmait Mac Murchadha, the ousted RI of Leinster, who sought England's help in regaining the land he once ruled, had no right under Irish Law to offer any Irish land, or kingship to Strongbow - because under Irish law, the land belonged to the Clan, and Kingship was not hereditary.
It was the limitations of Irish Law, as it existed at that point in time, which brought Mac Murchadha to power: Everyone had a vote, for a limited number of candidates.

The fact that it had enrolled under its banner the representatives of two different social systems contained the germs of its undoing. Had it been all feudal it would have succeeded in creating an independent Ireland, albeit with a serf population like that of England at the time; had it been all composed of the ancient septs it would have crushed the English power and erected a really free Ireland, but as it was but a hybrid, composed of both, it had all the faults of both and the strength of neither, and hence went down in disaster..
How is the Pan-Nationalist Alliance getting along in the Brexit negotiations?
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
837
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
From the Annals of Ulster:

"Tiernan O'Rourke, King of Brefni and Conmacne, a man of great power for a long time, was killed by the Saxons, and by Donnell, son of Annah O'Rourke of his own clan, along with them. He was beheaded by them, and his head and body were carried to Dublin. The head was raised over the gate of the fortress, a sore and miserable sight for the Gael. The body was hung in another place with the feet upwards." - Nicholas Furlong, Dermot, King of Leinster & the Foreigners

The English, or Anglo-Normans, certainly understood its importance in the 12th century, which is why they brought the dead body of Tiernan O'Rourke there from Meath, and used his head as a symbol of their dominance, in order to terrorize the rest of the populace into submission.
He was cut down in a parley at the Hill of Ward. The Invaders tried to portray it as a skirmish but Tiernan was a very old man and highly unlikely to try his hand in open combat with Norman Knights.

Henry II had granted the lands of Meath [Mide] to Hugh de Lacy but TOR was the kingmaker if you will there and this was a hit job pure and simple.

Yes planting his head on a stake over the walls of Dublin and hanging his body upside down like a slaughtered animal was deliberate act of humiliation

- to let the leading men of Meath know who and what they were dealing with.
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,634
What would a sock know about reality???

Ireland existed as a Nation/State/Kingdom, and was recognised as such throughout the western world - with its own High King, language, writing (both Ogham and 18 letter alphabet) - laws, the very essence of a unitary State, long before the 10th century upstart England even existed.

Irish writing is the oldest vernacular literature in Western Europe - Irish law is the oldest, most original, and most extensive of the European legal systems. It is a unique legal inheritance, an independent indigenous system of advanced jurisprudence for the Nation/Kingdom/State of Ireland that was fully evolved by the 8th century.

When England invaded, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair was the High King of Ireland (without opposition) - therefore Ireland was a sovereign state in which Irish people were united by known and accepted factors which define a nation - such as language, law, and common descent.

We Irish are Gaels, and our country is named in our stead. We are a distinct people - and our country is one of the oldest in the world.

Our Gaelic political and social order, and associated culture, originated/evolved in Ireland during prehistoric times - and still dominates to this day, despite all the foreign interference.

When the Roman Empire fell, we Irish saved the western world by opening centres of learning throughout Europe - meanwhile, your people in what was to become England were walking around on their knuckles.
Put down the Bong
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,968
An interesting aspect of the period invasion is the relatively prominent role of various female figures within the events...

Empress Matilda.... mother of King Henry II and erstwhile disputed ruler of England. In 1155 shortly after Henry’s accession to the throne he intended to mount an invasion of Ireland and to have his brother William rule over it. Matilda was not in favour of this and it seems she was a significant factor in the scuppering of this earlier intended invasion. William was reputed to be her favourite and she seems to have been very sceptical about the project and preferred her son to remain in England. I think it’s an interesting question as to whether any Irish kings or churchmen were aware of this earlier planned invasion.

Empress Matilda - Wikipedia

Derbforgaill O’Rourke.... an instrumental figure within the circumstances leading to the arrival of the Normans, wife of the aggrieved King Tigernan O’Rourke, later romanticised as a Helen of Ireland (spirited away in her mid 40s by Dermot MacMurrough). Rather than being the helpless victim of others passions and politics she seems to have been an influential person in her own right. The 5 separate references to her in the Annals is notable in itself. She was an active supporter of the Church and seems to have been an active player in the political machinations before and after the invasion.

Derbforgaill ingen Maeleachlainn - Wikipedia

Aoife MacMurrough....Daughter of Dermot, King of Leinster, and then as part of his deal with the Normans, wife of Richard de Clare(aka Strongbow). Aoife was also known as Red Eva....although it’s not clear whether this was a reference to her hair or to her reputed effectiveness as a defender of her territory during her periods of her husbands absence. The marriage of Strongbow and Aoife was seemingly a happy one. The invasion as a seismic event in Irish history is well captured in Daniel Maclise’s painting The Marriage of Strongbow and Aoife which hangs in the National Gallery

A658CD41-60C2-4847-9EF5-80594501E6DC.jpeg

Aoife MacMurrough - Wikipedia

Isabel de Clare.... daughter of Strongbow and Aoife. Following the death of her brother she became heir to vast areas of land in Leinster and Wales. She married William Marshall, Lord Marshall 4 successive kings, Henry ll, Richard l, John and Henry lll. Via their descendants the blood of Dermot MacMurrogh lived on amongst the Bruce, Stuart, and Plantagenet royal lines, on though to the current royalty of England and of the other European royals too.

She was reputed to be “the good, the fair, the wise, the courteous lady of high degree". She spoke French, Irish and Latin....(note not english).

Isabel de Clare, 4th Countess of Pembroke - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,968
Isabel also seems to have been behind the commissioning of Le chansun de Dermot e li Comte(The Song of Dermot and the Earl), a poem in Norman French describing the events of the Norman invasion. Within this, and just as an interesting example of the text and near contemporary record, is the account of Alice of Abergavenny, described as a wench. It describes the fate of the captured Norse and Irish after the Battle of Baginbun....

Des Yrreis esteint pris
Bien desque a seisant dis;
Mes li barun chevaler
Iceuz firent decoler.
A une baesse firent bailler
Une hache tempré de ascer
Que tuz les ad decolés
E pus les cors aphaleisés,
Por ço que aveit le jor
Son ami perdu en l'estur.
Aliz out non d'Eberveni
Que les Yrreis servist isi.

Up to seventy Irishmen
were taken prisoner
and the brave knights
had them beheaded.
They gave an axe of tempered steel
to a wench
who beheaded them all
and then threw the bodies over the cliff,
for she had lost her lover
that day in the battle.
The girl who served the Irish thus
was called Alice of Abergavenny.
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
837
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
It depends on what you mean by 'the Pale.' As far as I'm aware, there was settlements on the banks of An Ruirthech, the Liffy, stetching back a lot further than the 1st recorded Viking settlement. 988 is the official date, and I think it was roughly three time the width it is now. Ptolemy identified a river in the area in the 2nd century, which again suggests activity in the area. In the Fionn and Oisin stories a battle is recorded in north Dublin. The point being that the Fionn-Gall and the Fionn-Lochlannaigh may be two separate groups who arrived at two completely different periods. The Welsh had a similar Fair-headed people who were definitely not German or Saxons. If there was an oversight by Gaelic-ethnographers, it could mean that what we loosely define as Vikings arrived much earlier than we originally believed. The 'Pale' can conjure up images of a wall being built around a new settlement, or one that came from the Vikings in the 10th century: That wipes out a possible 800 years of history, possibly more. If the Bear-Cults arrived in Clare 10,000 BC, it's not completely implausible that there was traffic between Scandinavia and Ireland between then and the official date the Vikings established Dublin. Although it's coming from the other direction, the Carthagians had traveled at least as far as Cornwall in 600 BC, and in 50 BC, Caesar credited the same network of people with having superior ships to the Romans. The point being that the technology existed for regular trips between Ireland and Scandinavia. I'm nearly sure that battle in north Dublin I'm referring to is recorded as 200 AD or thereabouts, because it struck me as odd that they were described as foreigners. This is 800 years before Mael Seachnaill defeated the Vikings in the 10th century.
The book you need to get is Dublin before the Vikings by Dr George A. Little


Very interesting reading!
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,725
Twitter
No
//

And what is unacceptable about your posts is that you post as if England had some right to invade and occupy Ireland - which it did not.

//

Of course not.

In the 1170s it was all personal, you owed loyalty to some king and his system, there was no sense of a state called england or ireland.

We went along with this all the way to 1691 and james II and his system - his heirs etc. - but by 1791 you had parliaments, the rights of man and the militarised high-tax nation state.

In 1171 Henri saw it as putting manners on his "subject" strongbow, who had taken over a part of ireland, and in the process almost all our kings submitted to him in hopes of protection from strongbow's next move.
 

Talk Back

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,636
Of course not.

In the 1170s it was all personal, you owed loyalty to some king and his system, there was no sense of a state called england or ireland.

We went along with this all the way to 1691 and james II and his system - his heirs etc. - but by 1791 you had parliaments, the rights of man and the militarised high-tax nation state.

In 1171 Henri saw it as putting manners on his "subject" strongbow, who had taken over a part of ireland, and in the process almost all our kings submitted to him in hopes of protection from strongbow's next move.
More unhistorical shite - England's claim to Ireland is illegal and fraudulent. England has no mandate in Ireland - it never did. Irish people never owed any loyalty to an invading and occupying foreign English King. We had our own High King.

1/The King of Ireland ousted Mac Murchadha as RI of Leinster, who then sought England's help in regaining the land he once ruled, but Mac Murchadha had no right under Irish Law to offer any Irish land, or kingship to Strongbow - because under Irish law, the land belonged to the Clan, and Kingship was not hereditary.

2/ England's claim to Ireland, namely, the reform the Irish church by assuming control of Ireland, was fraudulent - an English Pope, Adrian IV and an English King, Henry II, conspiring to steal Irish land, had NO authority, moral or legal. The scrap of paper England claimed was a Papal Bull, the 'Laudabiliter', was based on the 'Donation of Constantine' - and the 'Laudabiliter' was deemed a forgery, and now is nowhere to be found.

3/ The 'Donation of Constantine' - was also a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor, Constantine the Great, supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire (which Ireland was never a part of) to a Pope - again making England's illegal and fraudulent claim on Ireland a moot non-point.

These are the historical facts - suck it up.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top