This day in Ireland 938 years ago....

[Thranduil]

Excellent and interesting summary. A couple of things jump out - that Ireland was a warlike place (just like the rest of the world at the time) and that the use of foreign mercenaries, regardless of their origin, was widespread. Then, one day, some of them arrived in Bannow Bay and the rest is history.

Not that the Normans have much to do with the subject of the OP, but comparing the Norman invasion to mercenary activity is stretching the truth substantially, mercenaries arrive and do a service for a lord and then leave as opposed to taking over with themselves as overlords - the Normans justified their invasion on the basis of racial and cultural superiority, something mercs (as subordinates) obviously never did.

Just a thought - would Irelands history have been any different if the Welsh-Normans that were invited by McMurrough had been defeated?

Every event in history opens potential new possibilities that are impossible to predict... If a changed history resulted in reduced foreign interference in Ireland overall (from that period to today) our history would likely have been 'better' for the natives at all points counted together - although ironically the plight of the Irish could possibly still be worse today (as measured in some ways), consider the Africans who were kidnapped and tortured on slave plantations, had this not happened their descendants in the US would today be living in Africa... Most of them prefer to be Americans than Africans...

With us some argue that our experience of colonialism has conveyed advantages in some areas perhaps... for those who dwell here at this moment in time (if not for those Irish in the past who were subjected to acts of genocide and persecution), however it could also be said that it seems certain that Europe was destined to advance first anyway (and this was settled before England became a power) and therefore the Irish would today be a part of a region more advanced and more prosperous than the rest of the world regardless.

But that's prosperity and measuring cruelty and murder over centuries, what about cultural loss? The question of regret/complaint over Irish history amounts to the loss of culture - and really nothing else. Europe doesn't feel regretful because so many millions died of the black death, it does not count itself a victim because of the Thirty Years War which killed over 10 million - lost lives in the fullness of time do not bring as much of a sense of loss centuries later as lost culture does, the loss of culture and the loss of the ability and power to independently radiate native cultural authority over your own people from within is possibly the most bitter long term legacy of British rule in Ireland (along with the plantations).

P.S Good post Catalpa, very interesting.

[markjbloggs]

Not that the Normans have much to do with the subject of the OP, but comparing the Norman invasion to mercenary activity is stretching the truth substantially, mercenaries arrive and do a service for a lord and then leave as opposed to taking over with themselves as overlords - the Normans justified their invasion on the basis of racial and cultural superiority, something mercs (as subordinates) obviously never did.



Every event in history opens potential new possibilities that are impossible to predict... If a changed history resulted in reduced foreign interference in Ireland overall (from that period to today) our history would likely have been 'better' for the natives at all points counted together - although ironically the plight of the Irish could possibly still be worse today (as measured in some ways), consider the Africans who were kidnapped and tortured on slave plantations, had this not happened their descendants in the US would today be living in Africa... Most of them prefer to be Americans than Africans...

With us some argue that our experience of colonialism has conveyed advantages in some areas perhaps... for those who dwell here at this moment in time (if not for those Irish in the past who were subjected to acts of genocide and persecution), however it could also be said that it seems certain that Europe was destined to advance first anyway (and this was settled before England became a power) and therefore the Irish would today be a part of a region more advanced and more prosperous than the rest of the world regardless.

But that's prosperity and measuring cruelty and murder over centuries, what about cultural loss? The question of regret/complaint over Irish history amounts to the loss of culture - and really nothing else. Europe doesn't feel regretful because so many millions died of the black death, it does not count itself a victim because of the Thirty Years War which killed over 10 million - lost lives in the fullness of time do not bring as much of a sense of loss centuries later as lost culture does, the loss of culture and the loss of the ability and power to independently radiate native cultural authority over your own people from within is possibly the most bitter long term legacy of British rule in Ireland (along with the plantations).

P.S Good post Catalpa, very interesting.

I had always believed that the Normans were here as mercenaries, saw an opportunity after McMurroughs death and became conquerers. So this is not true ?

[Keith-M]

It underlines how - contrary to some Unionist historography- Ireland had a civilisation long before the arrival of the Anglo-Normans.

No unionist that I'm aware of denies that there was a form of civilisation on the island. It is clear from reading about the history of the time that there wasn't a an all island unitary entity as some nationalists would have you believe.

[Riadach]

Not that the Normans have much to do with the subject of the OP, but comparing the Norman invasion to mercenary activity is stretching the truth substantially, mercenaries arrive and do a service for a lord and then leave as opposed to taking over with themselves as overlords - the Normans justified their invasion on the basis of racial and cultural superiority, something mercs (as subordinates) obviously never did.

But the initial activity of the Normans was indeed mercenary.

[eoghanacht]

No unionist that I'm aware of denies that there was a form of civilisation on the island. It is clear from reading about the history of the time that there wasn't a an all island unitary entity as some nationalists would have you believe.

The country ITSELF is the unitary entity, culturally, spiritually and geographically etc, etc.
Your culture would be respected IF you and your folk can respect our's and instead of focusing on our small few differences we cultivate or many common bonds.

[Thranduil]

I am sure there hasn't been a single invasion of any land that wasn't first petitioned by at least some among it's subjects, even the recent war in Iraq was...

I guess in the strictest definition (where merc simply means, payment for fighting and no other conditions), initially it was... Even if the 'employer' in this case was really a peasant - having been just ejected by the High King from the country.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

A very interesting and good read, keep it up.

[Riadach]

I am sure there hasn't been a single invasion of any land that wasn't first petitioned by at least some among it's subjects, even the recent war in Iraq was...

I guess in the strictest definition (where merc simply means, payment for fighting and no other conditions), initially it was... Even if the 'employer' in this case was really a peasant - having been just ejected by the High King from the country.

There was no such law stating that a king could be ejected, never mind deprived of his status as king. He may not have been in favour, but he was no peasant, a fact recognised by his former vassals when he returned with a new army.

[Cael]

Go raibh maith agat a chara, an suimiúil go deo.

[Thranduil]

There was no such law stating that a king could be ejected, never mind deprived of his status as king. He may not have been in favour, but he was no peasant, a fact recognised by his former vassals when he returned with a new army.

However there was a ritual called the banais ríghe in which a king was wedded to the land - thus sovereignty was bestowed upon him (and not contained within blood) so long as he cared for the land. McMurrough would have known about Dal Riata and the downfall of the Picts, he would have known of the nature of the Normans - he would have understood the danger of putting 'foreigners' in the position in which he put them... yet he scorned the needs of the land, his culture, country, systems of laws instead favouring his own ambition and putting the land into peril, thus in deeds he was not a king in the way that the responsibilities of that role are described in the banais ríghe (where that applied - Leinster may not have bothered with such things being so heavily Viking and Saxon influenced - however).

Vassals would have done whatever they were told to do and not opposed him (particularly with his new army) this does not signify approval.