- This topic has 4 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
That's my simplified thesis, but I am looking for arguments against this.Main reasons are because the English gave Ireland it's first centralized administration and added to the economy of Ireland by an increase in both domestic and international trade. Aslo, the English formed large, organized cities in Ireland.Although many viewed Dermot as a traitor, he probably saved Ireland from itself when he requested Henry II's assistance.
I would question your use of “good” in your thesis. 😀Is it "good" in the way that bringing slaves to America was "good" for Africans because their descendants would eventually have better standards of living than many who remained in Africa? That's obviously loaded with controversy, and something can be technically correct while still being very difficult to argue.So basically, I may consider tweaking the word "good" if I were you, and be aware of arguments of those who don't think it was "good" at all. NB: I am not very familiar with your paper topic and am not saying the slavery analogy applies directly...just saying it sounds like it might apply somehow.
Saved Irish from themselves ???? sounds a bit paternalist ...
Actually it's realistic. The political situation in pre-Norman Ireland from the death of Boru to the invasion was pitifully divided and decentralized, and that's according to both British and Celtic sources. Constant wars, skirmishes, and destruction of arable land.Phid, the word 'good' is not in the thesis.
Saved Irish from themselves ???? sounds a bit paternalist ...
Actually it's realistic. The political situation in pre-Norman Ireland from the death of Boru to the invasion was pitifully divided and decentralized, and that's according to both British and Celtic sources. Constant wars, skirmishes, and destruction of arable land.Phid, the word 'good' is not in the thesis.
Ok. But I do think that Aetheling has a point about possibly sounding paternalistic. I don't want to sound too much like a post-colonialist, but if history is written by the winners then the British and Celtic sources could very well be biased.I'm not saying that your thesis isn't workable, but if you use it, it would be good to mention a list of plausible opposing points that argue that the invasion was actually "bad". Perhaps you were going to do this anyway, but I think it would go a long way in making your argument stronger.
Even though I do think the invasion benefitted the Irish, I'm going to try to argue it both ways. Most, if not all, post-invasion sources are biased. Not sure if it's the Book of Leinster or Book of Kells or both (purely Irish sources) that mentions the political divisions and harm caused by them. They had to retitle some of the kings to “king, with opposition” because it was that bad. Henry II did take it to paternalistic extremes when he feigned a religious interest in the Irish, which is how, along with Pope Adrian IV being an Englishman, he got the papal bull to invade.
The first wave of the Norman invasion wasn't really an invasion because Ireland was never completely conquered, it took a few centuries for this to occur. Henry II was quite diplomatic in his dealings with Irish kings and lords and did not completely, I would even argue that he did not desire to, conquer them. He wanted fiefs and the native Irish kings cooperated with him because they wanted order. After Strongbow became king of Leinster, Henry recalled him and other English lords because they were reportedly brutalizing and terrorizing the native population.
BTW, pre-Norman Ireland has my vote for the most dysfunctional country in Medieval Europe.
How "dysfunctional" were they ?
There was no political unity or leadership whatsoever. The former family hierarchies of high-kingship gave way to who was the most brutal. Kingdoms became smaller and more segregated. Even though Henry II and Gerald of Wales lied about it, the state of the Irish church had improved substantially. But even that national institution was unable to unite Ireland, although they tried.It's dysfinctional because I can't really find a good reason for all the warring. Ireland had an abundancy of natural resources, so it wasn't about that. They destroyed their own land and livestock just for the sake of revenge.
They destroyed their own land and livestock just for the sake of revenge.
You mean like many other tribal societies throughout history?
They destroyed their own land and livestock just for the sake of revenge.
You mean like many other tribal societies throughout history?
Exactly, but in a slight way, Ireland reminds me of Greece...same culture/religion, constant inter-state warfare, then eventually conquered and united by outside forces. Ironically, the Vikings united Ireland for a time but their rule became a bit arrogant and brutal and contributed to the decline of the Irish church. A great king, Brian Boru, arose and united Ireland to oppose the Vikings. However, his death in the battle of Clontarf left Ireland in a state of disarray with arguably less unity than ever before. The church recovered, though, and went through a series of reforms in the 12th century. Then the Dermot vs. O'Rourke clash after Dermot abducted (or rescued, depending on one's point of view) O'Rourke's wife, left Ireland, as mentioned in The Song of Dermot and the Earl, as "a trembling sod."
