Wars of the Three Kingdoms

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
Catalpa said:
Jozer said:
The classic English teaching of 'The English Civil War' also does the era a great disservice, by simplistically presenting the conflict in England in isolation.
IIRC there was a Siege of Bristol during these Wars?

Is it commemorated in any way in the City - eg museum or monuments?
I don't believe so. These events from the middle ages have been supplanted by more recent events such as the defeat of Nazism.
 


Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
White Horse said:
Catalpa said:
Jozer said:
The classic English teaching of 'The English Civil War' also does the era a great disservice, by simplistically presenting the conflict in England in isolation.
IIRC there was a Siege of Bristol during these Wars?

Is it commemorated in any way in the City - eg museum or monuments?
I don't believe so. These events from the middle ages have been supplanted by more recent events such as the defeat of Nazism.
Well I realise that the term 'Middle Ages' is a relatively modern construct but I am not aware that anyone considers the 17th Century to be part of the Middle Ages.

Most historians would accept that that period had run it's course by circa 1500 AD.
 

Jozer

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
57
No. The Civil War is presented very simplistically in English school history. The 'personality clash' between Charles & Cromwell is actually presented as a major feature! The message put accross is that it set the relationship between crown & parliament (1688-90 is not mentioned at all because of the embarrassing N.Ireland/sectarianism thing).

Bristol was a naturally pro-Parliament city which was occupied by Prince Rupert's Royalists for most of the war. Our local Republicans occasionally throw a bash to commemorate it's liberation, but the local powers that be give it no attention at all.
 

redneckwally

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
12
The 17th century has been taught in primary schools. The emphasis has been on presenting a broad narrative sweep and giving a superficial understanding of the past. The focus now and I think in secondary schools is on a deeper understanding of a narrower time period. It could be argued that every century in the last thousand years has had an impact and should be studied in depth. But this is not possible.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
redneckwally said:
The 17th century has been taught in primary schools. The emphasis has been on presenting a broad narrative sweep and giving a superficial understanding of the past. The focus now and I think in secondary schools is on a deeper understanding of a narrower time period. It could be argued that every century in the last thousand years has had an impact and should be studied in depth. But this is not possible.
Come off it. The 17th century is far more important in Irish history than almost any other. 16th century? Not much happened until 1594. The 18th century, not much happened apart from 1798.

The 8th-10th century Golden Age, the 12th century Norman Invasion, all of the 17th century, 1798, and everything that happened under the Act Of Union (19th and 20thC) are the important bits of Irish history. Most of the rest is pretty meaningless.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Sidewinder said:
redneckwally said:
The 17th century has been taught in primary schools. The emphasis has been on presenting a broad narrative sweep and giving a superficial understanding of the past. The focus now and I think in secondary schools is on a deeper understanding of a narrower time period. It could be argued that every century in the last thousand years has had an impact and should be studied in depth. But this is not possible.
Come off it. The 17th century is far more important in Irish history than almost any other. 16th century? Not much happened until 1594. The 18th century, not much happened apart from 1798.

The 8th-10th century Golden Age, the 12th century Norman Invasion, all of the 17th century, 1798, and everything that happened under the Act Of Union (19th and 20thC) are the important bits of Irish history. Most of the rest is pretty meaningless.
I wouldn't say the rest is pretty meaningless...

I mean the Anglo Norman Invasion began in 1169 and the physical Conquest wasn't completed until 1603.

There is over 400 years of Irish History there in which plenty of events took place.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
Catalpa said:
There is over 400 years of Irish History there in which plenty of events took place.
Name one of them then.

About the only thing of note in the entire period was the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366, which mark the first attempt to "make Ireland English". Oh, stuff happened alright, but not much happened that had any long-term effect.
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
Well there were the Bruce wars
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
And the Irish backed the Yorkist pretenders to the English throne
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
martin TYRONE said:
And the Irish backed the Yorkist pretenders to the English throne
Well more like the Fitzgeralds of Kildare did supported by a few others!

This triggered the last battle of Wars of the Roses when an expedition from Ireland - a mixture of English Yorkists, Anglo Normans, some Gaelic troops and 2,000 German mercenaries - were defeated by Henry VII of England at the Battle of Stoke.

This invasion of England had been launched to aid the pretender Lambert Simnel (a 10 year old!) who was passed off as one of the legitimate heirs of Edward IV IIRC.
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
HE was about 14
 

beardyboy

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
207
Indeed - I would classify myself as a Jacobite nor Republican, the best book I have read on this broad period is Ireland and the jacobite Cause 1685-1766 by Eamonn O Ciardha (subtitled "A Fatal Attachment"), also see www.jacobite.ca and do not forget your white rose on White Rose Day , stuff yer poppy.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
beardyboy said:
Indeed - I would classify myself as a Jacobite nor Republican, the best book I have read on this broad period is Ireland and the jacobite Cause 1685-1766 by Eamonn O Ciardha (subtitled "A Fatal Attachment"), also see www.jacobite.ca and do not forget your white rose on White Rose Day , stuff yer poppy.
Mean to read that myself one day!

But why be a Jacobite in this day and Age??? :shock:
 

Respvblica

Active member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
212
Rocky said:
The fact that the Old English and Gaelic Irish continually swear loyalty to the English king and the fact that all they wanted was a better deal for Catholics and not Independence and a few other things like that wouldn’t exactly make Republicans happy who try to claim that there is a continuous seven hundred years of rebellion against English, but all the same I’d be reluctant to believe that there is an attempt to cover it up.
I'd say its slightly more complex than that but really it seems that the nationality of the sovereign was not an issue. The Spanish and the Germans had no problem being ruled over by Charles V the Hapsburg who was more like Luxembourg-Belgian.
I think the lords of Ireland certainly did want independence of action however, just as an elector or prince of Germany could have had under Charles. As far as the Lords and Rí Tuaiths were concerned their little corner of Ireland was more important than the unity of the island.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
You also have to take culture into account. Centralised authoritarian militaristic Monarchy was an alien concept to both the Gaels and the Norman lords in Ireland. For about 2000 years the Gaels had been living in a system where the Ard Rí was just a ceremonial, often ignored, figurehead and all power was local. And in the centuries after the Norman invasion, all the great Norman families had got used to doing their own thing, and indeed had borrowed heavily from the style and customs of Gaelic chieftains. Swearing loyalty to some far-away King was seen as pretty meaningless. And so it was...until the Tudors ascended to the English Throne with other ideas.

It's somewhat analogous to the position of the Son Of Heaven, the Japanese Emperor, throughout the medieval period. The Emperor was utterly powerless, but all the great daimyos would of course swear undying loyalty to him, then completely ignore him.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Respvblica said:
Rocky said:
The fact that the Old English and Gaelic Irish continually swear loyalty to the English king and the fact that all they wanted was a better deal for Catholics and not Independence and a few other things like that wouldn’t exactly make Republicans happy who try to claim that there is a continuous seven hundred years of rebellion against English, but all the same I’d be reluctant to believe that there is an attempt to cover it up.
I'd say its slightly more complex than that but really it seems that the nationality of the sovereign was not an issue. The Spanish and the Germans had no problem being ruled over by Charles V the Hapsburg who was more like Luxembourg-Belgian.
I think the lords of Ireland certainly did want independence of action however, just as an elector or prince of Germany could have had under Charles. As far as the Lords and Rí Tuaiths were concerned their little corner of Ireland was more important than the unity of the island.
But the unity of Ireland was just not an issue! No one doubted that this island was one Country. That only became an issue circa 1912 - over 200 years afterwards! :shock:

Also both the 'Old english' and the Gaelic Irish wanted a National Parliament - they wanted a fair measure of control over their own affairs with an end to religous persecution.

Religion
Land
Independence

were the order of priority for most people at the time.
 

FutureLabourLeader

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
102
Gaelic Lords often submitted to the English for their own gain. The Surrender and Regrant is an example of that. The very fact that there were Gaelic Lords using the title of "Earl" is also an example
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
FutureLabourLeader said:
Gaelic Lords often submitted to the English for their own gain. The Surrender and Regrant is an example of that. The very fact that there were Gaelic Lords using the title of "Earl" is also an example
Well that's because the English were making them offers they couldn't refuse! :?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top