Talk:History of Ireland/Archive 3

Re-conquest and rebellion

An anon editor removed presbyterians from the sentence

It was restricted for most of its existence in terms both of membership — Catholics were barred from holding office after 1607 and from parliament altogether after 1641 — and of powers, notably by Poynings Law of 1494, which said that no bill could be introduced into the Irish Parliament without the approval of the English Privy Council.

Is this correct? Or was it simply all nonconformists - Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, Jew? --Red King 17:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that Presbyterianism and Anglicanism were not strictly defined as seperate religions at this point. The were both seen as branches of protestantism, although there were some tensions between them. The 1607 legislation did not target presbyterians, only catholics. Anti-presbyterian legislation was not formally passed until 1704. Jdorney 10:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Desmond War - death toll

From the Reconquest and Rebellion section: "The second of these rebellions was put down by means of a forced famine, which may have killed up to a third of Munster's population" I don't dispute that proportion, but I'm not aware of any sources that could confirm it. In the Elizabeth I article I wrote that almost the entire population of the western part of the province appears to have died during the second Desmond war, and was immediately reverted on an NPOV (it makes the English appear "cruel"!) - I restored my edit (failure to discuss - see Lord Emsworth talk), but I can see other problems with it. Apart from relying on accounts of the tactics used from 1580-83, and the "anatomies of death" passage from Spenser's View, the only source remotely useful (to my knowledge) in making the assessment is the quaint but vague comment in the 4 Masters along the lines of "Not a cow was heard to be lowing" etc, and that's not even strictly contemporary. Richard Berleith's book The Twilight Lords - a good read on the Desmond rebellions, if not on the Nine Years War - cites William Petty's estimate of 600,000+ dead for the Elizabethan wars, when that figure actually relates (I'm sure) to the number who died in Ireland during the period of the Cromwellian wars - my point here is that I could guess that the figure is also plausible for the war dead of 1558-1603, but what would be the point? Should we guess in the absence of hard evidence? Is there such evidence, overlooked by me? I suffer similar confusion over attempts to estimate the population of Ireland in this period (and over estimates of how often people bathed - the desire to know doesn't justify all these stabbings in the dark). On a different point, to see how much controversy use of the term "forced famine" can generate, click on the discussion page of Holodomor.--shtove 22:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lord President of Munster wrote bin the English state papersthat he believed that about 30,000 people had dided by 1583 of famine, which is estimated at about a third of the province's population. The 600,000 figure of Petty's definitely relates to the cromwellian era and is now though to be too large. The west of munster was depopulated, but it wouldn't be true to say that the entire population was wiped out. Apart from anything else, the McCarthys and O'sullivans did not join the second rebellion, in fact they fought with the English, so they were largely left alone. Re forced famine, there shouldn't be any controversy over what happened in the Ukraine, its well documented. Anyway, the English openly admited, see Spenser they had caused forced famine in the 1580s. Jdorney

Thanks for that. I would have assumed (ie. guessed) the figure was higher than 30,000. Is the president you refer to John Norris, and was he writing in the SPI or Domestic Papers? I'm not being a pain, but can you source those figures, even in a text book, to satisfy my curiosity and allow me amend my Elizabeth I edit? And do you know of a reliable overall estimate for the Elzabethan period, or even just for the Nine Years War? Forgive my ignorance, but I stopped reading everything on this period a good few years ago. On a different matter, see my rewrite of the John Perrot article - I've included an analysis of his downfall and its consequences, which may be of interest. On forced famine: it's not controversial in this context - but Holodomor discussion has attracted some pretty aggressive contributions, with lots of shady ideology going on. By the way, I read somewhere on your pages that the savages of Galway were supposed to be keeping you away from those plastic contraptions they call computers.--shtove 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just got internet access in Galway, so I'm back! I read the report in the Calender of State Papers, but I forget which lord president it was and all my books, notes etc are in Dublin. When I get the chance, I'll stick the relevant info onj here. Re the Nine Years War, the only relaible figure for casualties is for English soldiers, of whom about 30,000 died, mostly of disease. The Annals of Ulster, I think, claimed that about 60,000 civilians died in another forced famine the final years of that war (1602-1603). This may be an exageration, but recent research shows that there was a massive flood of refugess fleeing IReland for England and France at this time, so things must have been pretty bad. If you also take into acccount the numbers killed in nine years of fighting on the Irish side, the toll, I would estimate, approaches 10,000, although I have no way of substantiating this. Re the Ukraine, I read the talk page and it makes me really angry, it is now proven byond all doubt that Stalin deliberatly caused a famine to wipe out hte Ukrainian (and other) peasantry. People who try to insinuate otherwise are no better than holocaust deniers in my book. Jdorney

Any chance of the relevant info referred to above? I see David Irvine, the arch-Denier, is in custody in Austria (where his prison-library lends copies of his books!) - he started out by numbering numbers for Dresden, and ends up dissembling about the extermination camps: the numbers game of war-dead is newspaper trash, but I still want to know.--shtove 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order

A sincere thanks to those of you who have done such a fantastic job improving this article! Someone give these people whatever awards wiki hands out. Hey, a thought! How about submitting it for consideration at Peer Review or as a Featured Article in the near future, once a little more work is done on it? Stuff of this calibre really ought to get a wide exposure on wikipdeia. Fergananim 00:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup the intro?

• Jdorney asked if I would clean up the intro section of this article, because his browser can't cope with such a big article. Actually he just meant that I should fix some broken links! But when I looked, I thought that the opening section really lets down what is otherwise an excellent article. What follows has been transported from his talk page. So question - does anybody else agree that it needs a good spring-clean along the lines I've suggested below? I don't want to do any more work and have everyone revert it! --Red King 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC) :

I'm not a historian! But I'll have a look as I hate cluttered articles. I guess you noticed I spring-cleaned History of Ireland (1801-1922)? --Red King 12:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes fair play. I actually did some of the intro stuff on the history of Ireland page myself when i got access to another computer. I stuck some images in as well. But maybe the whole thing could do with cleaning up and pruning? Jdorney 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well if you did, maybe you won't like what I'm about to propose. I really think that the intro shouldn't be a highlights of the highlights of the highlights. It should simply set the scene for what is to follow. Here is my first cut:

The History of Ireland is the story of an island on northwest edge of Europe. The principal phases of that story are given in the template to the right and the table of contents below. The first these phases describes the early settlement about ten thousand years ago and ends with the arrival of Christianity. This phase is charcterised by neolithic monuments and artefacts, and Celtic oral history. The early Christian era followed, producing masterpieces such as the Book of Kells. The early medieval era brought Viking raids and then settlement that ended just after the close of the first millenium.

Much of story of the subsequent thousand years is a record of Ireland's strained relations with its larger neighbour and how that experience has formed its culture, its values and its sense of self. It is also characterised by the popular adherence by many of its people to two of the sects of Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Positively, these have given Irish people access to the broader continental and the anglo-saxon world views; negatively, they have provided the insignia for sectarian conficts that are contrary to the tenets of both.

I see where you're going alright, but I don't know if I agree with that intro. Its a bit too conceptual and not factual enough. If we were condensing it that much, I would rather say something like: 'Ireland was conquered by England and colonised by settlers who were distinguished by their Proestant religion. This led to ongoing sectarian conflicts over land, power and national identity'. I wouldn't see it as the place for a brief introduction to size up the pors and cons of the main branches of christianity in western Europe! Jdorney

It is instructive to look at History of France. I feel the the present HoI is too heavily biased in favour of war and politics, so I was trying to bring out the cultural impact of these. HoF gets round that by running multiple stories in parallel.

Actually I do think that the intro for a long article such as this needs to conceptual and scene-setting. I understand the "tell 'em what you are going to tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you've told 'em" model, but an intro that pulls a few arbitrary prime dates without context is really unhelpful. The hard facts come in the narative below and I don't think we should hit people with references in the first sentence.

Maybe what I've written is high falutin', and the religious stuff too strong, but I do feel it important to have a big intro. Your alternative (perhaps intentionally!) is a bit 1066 and all that. --Red King 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well all I had in mind originally here was to fix the broken links in the intro,but reading over it, I can see what you mean, there is far too much detail in it at the moment. Something conceptual would be good, as long as it had a few basic facts in it as well. Jdorney 10:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks, just came back to this article after first contributing last July. I just added some material about languages to the intro, and upon re-reading I'm wondering whether that whole language paragraph (which feels, both before and after my edit, like it escaped from the general Ireland article) should be removed in favor of a paragraph about the Viking invasions and brief unity of the Irish crown under Brian Boru. Thoughts? Dppowell 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. I think this is a much better fit than the language stuff, which seemed like more of a non sequitur every time I looked at it. Dppowell 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comments? --Red King 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Removed JOSH AND ADNAN DID THIS IN HALF AN HOUR, YEYE!! BROWN PRIDE from map of the Bubonic Plague. Garbage unnecessary...Vidabonita 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavy edit still needed

We are way outside the 32k max article size so a heavy edit is needed to meet the first test of a Featured Article. Unless anyone objects, I'll move large quantities of the material to the proposed detail articles that currently only exist as red lines, and replace with a summary. --Red King 23:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the original text of the norman period to a new article Norman Ireland and replaced it here by an abridged version. It is good stuff, so I hope I haven't mangled it! Feel free to revert and re-edit if you think you can improve! --Red King 00:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done likewise with the original text of 800-1166 and it is now in Early Medieval Ireland 800-1166. --Red King 21:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The 32k isn't an absolute maximum - W. Mark Felt recently succeeded on FAC and it's about 59k. As long as there aren't any sections that aren't relevant to the article it's unlikely to be objected to imo. I definitely wouldn't remove large amounts of text to get it under or close to 32k. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Does anybody else feel like sumarising Tudor reconquest to Act of Union, as I think it is too difficult for anyone but a historian to pick out what is really seminal. It's all important! --Red King 21:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Taking an entirely different tack, I notice that History of Britain consists only of links. Presumably the consensus was that a continuous narrative was impossible, that the heavy editing required would leave an article so gutted as to be useless. --Red King 16:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision

Hi lads. I replaced the following lines - "This was followed by a migration of Celtic-speaking people between 700 and 500 BC" - because there is no proof such an event ever occoured. Cheers. Fergananim 23:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A Few Further Points

I don't get many messages anymore so I'm not sure if anyone is paying me any attention, but in the interests of our national heritage etc ...

1 - I changed the recent edits on the medieval-early modern headings as they were'nt really kosher. Got rid of the term petty kingdoms before I realised what it meant, and so put it back. Sorry. I disliked it - and still do - because the wording appears to suggest that they were not 'real' kingdoms, merely 'tribal' chiefdoms or some such. We know otherwise, and I guess I have being overzealous in trying to keep that in place. Sorry!

2 - Anyone know who made the maps? Eh, I have a few things to say (no one will ever speck to me again when I'm finished ...) about them. As follows: the 1014 map.

• A - Osraige, buffer kingdom between Leinster and Munster. Wherefore?
• B - All of what is now Co. Clare (then Thomond) was in Munster.
• C - All of west & central Brefine was in Connacht. East B. still part of Oirel.
• D - S. Ui Neill kingdom was called the Kingdom of Mide
• E - N. Ui Neill kingdom was called Ailech (see Kings of Ailech).

Okay, and as for the map of Ireland A.D. 1300 ...

• A - All of Connamara free of Anglo-Normans.
• B - Ditto Erris, Achill, north-west and north Mayo.
• C - Ditto north & central Roscommon, area around Lough Allen.
• D - The O' Moores of Laois were never subduded either.

That's about it. The tide had turned against the Anglo-Normans by then, though we really were a push-over at first. Over the next hundred years they lost way more, God help them. Cheers. Fergananim 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Will someone please remove the request to merge this article with the Early History one? We are trying to make this article smaller by creating a number of more detailed ones and leaving an overview here. There is no basis whatsoever for merging these two articles. Jdorney 14:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Jdorney's view. If anything, we need to take stuff out of here and into the detailed articles. --Red King 18:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Early Modern Ireland

I have moved the text of the early modern section to its own article Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691, which I intend on expanding further, with the help of like minded people. I now propose cutting most of the text here down to a short paragraph, if people agree? Also, someone should really do something about the 18th century section, as its really very bad at the moment. Jdorney 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have cut down the early modern section. If people agree with the changes, can I ask them to put future additions in the Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691 article arather than here?

I have also created an eighteenth century article Ireland 1691-1801 from the dead link that was here it needs a lot of work. I have also cut down the 18c section here accordingly.

One more thing, can I ask for the template of Irish history on this page to be changed to include the new articles, thanks.

Jdorney 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Cromvell devastated Ireland

In this article the history of Ireland has the big blanks. Authors have overlooked, that Cromvell devastated Ireland in 1649-1651, many towns, such as Drogeda have been destroyed, the third of population was lost, Irish have been compulsorily expelled in the western fruitless areas of the island. And causes of the famine 1845-1849 is described inaccuratly. Authors have forgotten the "cleansing of manors " from tenants. Ben-Velvel 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"cleansing of manors"? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Big English landowners expelled Irish tenants and passed to animal industries, because of falling prices for grain in the English markets. Ben-Velvel 12:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That was because of less demand for grain in the aftermath of the Napoleonic War. And no it was not a major contributory factor to the Famine because few tenants actually were evicted. The problem was an overreliance on one foodstuff that was hit by blight, coupled with incompetent handling of the crisis in London and Dublin. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The authors have not forgotten any of this. There is a link to detailed article on the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, including the dath toll and the transplantations to Connaght, there is also more on this information which has been moved the Early Modern Article as I have just explained. Read the article more carefully and then see what you think. Jdorney 11:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the so-called English landlords were Irish, Irish interceine and military activity caused just as much disruption and death at different times, and most of those transplanted to Connacht and elsewhere were members of the aristocracy and gentry. The overwhelming majority of the lower classes stayed put. Fergananim 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock the article in order to diversify the sources!

Yes, I agree fully with the title, Cromwell was an atrocious oppressor, here it is stated that his rule caused robbing of the land of the Irish people and that 6/7 (86%) of the whole Irish land was forcibly obtained by the Brites (source). That are crucial facts, please unblock the article so that I can add them with the source, it is not fair to have only English source, the quoted one is neutral! Bogorm (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trim Castle image

File:TrimCastleNorman.jpg is currently a dead link. Anybody know what happened? There are multiple links to it. --Red King 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I have cut the introduction quite substantially, as I feel that it should not be a summary of the whole article, but rather a short guide for the reader. Most of the rest of the article should be cut as well, in my opinion, as we now have a good series of more detailed sub articles on succesive periods. Jdorney 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. Fergananim had some concerns on my talk page about the accuracy of the intro content I added last month (which has been incorporated into your revision), but I don't know exactly what his concerns are and would invite him to share them here. I'm in the middle of my own revision of the intro, as requested by Red King a few weeks ago. As far as cutting "most of the rest of the article," I would suggest proceeding with caution. I've seen a number of peer comments (both on this article and elsewhere) which caution against the singleminded pursuit of brevity. I think that visitors who want to read a short history should be able to do that here; drilling down into the more detailed subarticles should be optional.Dppowell 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but this is not a short history, that's the problem. I think that there's too much detail here for someone who wanted a general overview of Irish history. Jdorney 17:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. J is right, we have to try and keep the content from overloading with detail. However, as D points out, there are concerns over exactly how the content should be phrased ... well, by me at least! Okay, I know, but I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it.

What I took issue with was the wording and phrasing of the paragraph concern, especially lines like " ... fragile political structure ...", "various regional tribes ...", and "... the Vikings ceased to be a serious military power ...". My objection to these is as follows:

1 - The Irish political structure was'nt fragile; after all, it endured right through these years and beyond. Compare it to the unfortunate English kingdoms such as Merica and Wessex in the same era. Despite the devestation they caused, the Danes and Norwegians of Ireland were eventually made vassals of the Irish kings, the polar opposite of what occoured in England.

2 - You cannot refer to the leading Irish political units as tribes, certainly not at this point in our history. Instead, you should name them a Dynasty (look it up), as this is what they were. This is important, because this changes the image of them as an anarchic bunch of cutthroats to ... a royal bunch of cutthroats! Think in terms of the Angevin, Capets, House of Bruce, and indeed any royal or noble family; well-bred, aristocratic, wealthy, belligerant and always on the look-out for the main chance. We must keep the correct terms, else we will lose sight of their reality.

3 - Be very careful when you state things like this, because the Ostmen of Dublin (and Limerick, Wexford and Waterford) remained a very serious military power all the way into the end of the 1100's. They were part of an Anglo-Irish raid on Gwynedd in 1063 that paved the way to power for Harold Godwinson, courtsey of Diarmait mac Mail na mBo. And they were well able to invade and attempt to retake Dublin under the leadership of their ousted king, Asculf Thorkellsson, in 1171. Certainly they ceased to be a military power in their own right, but really that had occoured under Mael Sechlainn II, not Brian. Yet they did remain a very powerful force usually under the command of the High King or whoever he loaned them out to.

I'm aware that for the general reader, you might not think such things would matter, and that perhaps we can afford to skip over. But I think you can see the mistaken perceptions that would arise from this. All I'm asking is that you dig a little deeper when makeing any contribution, even a stub. And keep your eyes out for mistakes yours sincerely will likewise make too! Cheers! 83.70.154.81 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglo/Cambro-Normans

I think it was David Greene who insisted on referring to the conquerors of 1169 as Cambro-Normans, rather than as Anglo-Normans. Anyone care to take issue?--shtove 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm surprised that there was even one mention to the invaders as 'Anglo-Norman' in this article. 86.42.98.32 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning links

In footnote 1, the first and third links don't connect.--shtove 22:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one seem fine, the second and third dont seem to work, because it looks as it it was removed from the article txt, apparenlt this looks like it might have happend a while ago, some one with a better back ground on the subject might want to flesh out why. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

History is history

"The History of Ireland is the history of...": clumsy - ley ye fix it.--shtove 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at fixing this. Killed the text about English and continental influences; in my opinion, that stuff goes without saying. Every place's history is influenced by the history of other places. No need to be explicit about it; the important influences will emerge in due course during the narrative. Comments welcome.Dppowell 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

The history section on the British Isles is currently being discussed on its talk page. Many editors feel that it is currently Anglo/British-centric; could editors from this page (or others who know about the history of Irleand) please help re-adress this balance? --Robdurbar 11:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Year dewikification

I dewikified all the year links I could find per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Dppowell 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Continental Europe

8,000 years ago Ireland was firmly on continental Europe. So to state that people came from Britain and continental Europe is quite factually wrong. It's either editors POV or editors ignorance. 86.42.148.212 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There's your citation. Please stop disrupting the introduction to the article. Dppowell 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

==

The following (long) sentence:

"Parnell's controversial leadership eventually ended when he was implicated in a divorce scandal, when it was revealed that he had been living with the wife of a fellow Irish MP, Katherine O'Shea, and was the father of some of her children."

-- Para 7, 'Union with Great Britain, 1801-1922", needs rewriting. It is unclear-- it suggests that Katherine O'Shea is the partner of a lesbian Irish MP, not, as is the case, Captain William O'Shea. I suggest:

"Parnell's controversial leadership eventually ended when he was implicated in a divorce scandal. He had been living with Katherine O'Shea, the wife of a fellow Irish MP, Captain William O'Shea. Unbeknownst to O'Shea, Parnell had sired children by her."

--Good article, though.