How possible would it have been for Ireland to defend against invaders or even expand if they had got their shit together and United? Were they known for being good fighters or is their only impressive trait being the guys who protected some sort of scripture or knowledge which was burned elsewhere or something?
Not even the first time I've heard this.
I heard the following things worthy of mention:
>Ireland preserved knowledge or writing for places with bigger dicks which helped prevent some sort of disaster
>Ulster kicked ass in the First World War with some dickass rifles
I only know the latter to be widely accepted as true.
Other that, I see very little. Apparently the IRA were a force to be reckoned with at one point.
>Were [the Irish] known for being good fighters?
Take a look at this extensively long list:
It's a list as long as your arm of Irish military leaders and units as who fought for other countries. The Irish for centuries were always in high demand as soldiers, known for their loyalty, bravery and discipline. With prospects of a good life often small at home in Ireland, the Irish often threw themselves into military careers and found themselves excelling on the battlefield.
The old joke in the 19th Century was that the Irish could win any war for any cause save a war for their own independence.
Ireland doesn't actually exist.
The name literally means just island and comes from the norse "oy land" pronounced er-io-lund. It is like calling Japan or Britain "the island". It is a political division created by the anglo based on it being a roughly country sized geographical feature, some bored and possibly autistic aristocrat thought it would be a great idea and imposed it on the powerless inhabitants rather like the arbitrary borders they set up in their ex-colonies.
This is bait, but to the people who believed him, Ireland comes from Éire (The native name for the country) and the English element "Land"
Éire is the name of a goddess associated with the country and with sovereignty and comes from a proto-celtic root meaning "bountiful", "abundant"
>How possible would it have been for Ireland to defend against invaders or even expand if they had got their shit together and United?
Possible but not guaranteed. Before the Norman conquest the Irish were on par with the vikings and Anglo-Saxons, often beating both of these groups. After the Normans' arrival they were completely outclassed. If the Irish had managed to drive off the Normans or if they had never been invited to begin with then it's conceivable that they could coalesce from tribes into a strong nation, like Sweden, or remain divided and become conquered, like Finnland.
>Were they known for being good fighters or is their only impressive trait being the guys who protected some sort of scripture or knowledge which was burned elsewhere or something?
On an individual level Irish soldiers had a very good reputation but during the colonial period strategy, equipment, logistics and training were always substandard to the English.
>coalesce from tribes into a strong nation, like Sweden
Lol please God no.
Reality was Ireland had a pretty good tribal system in place, wherein petty kings pledged allegiance to a temporary High King in times of great strife (usually foreign invasion).
Had Brian Boru survived 1014, its probable he would have consolidated control and established his descendants as the kings of the whole island of Ireland.
After that? Who knows. That leinster exile certainly wouldn't have invited England over to invade us, that's for sure. Under a united system there wouldn't be room for vassals to be killing each other.
The fact that Brian Boru's own kingdom fell into immediate succession crisis upon the unexpected death of their king at the age of 73, gives us ever reason to be skeptical the Brian could have created a unitary Irish state.
In one battle his army literally destroyed The Viking Kingdom of Dublin, the Vikings of Orkney and Mann and the Kingdom of Leinster.
He would have then annexed Leinster and Dublin, which along with his own lands in Munster was some of the most fertile land in the country.
That's about 1/2 of the island, and a show of force that would unsettle any petty king at the time.
>pretty good tribal system
>cattle raiding so endemic that it is a part of their culture
>kings pledged allegiance to a temporary High King in times of great strife
You mean the way the Kingdom of Leinster was causing strife by trying to introduce civilization to the rest of the island? King Dermot III was a hero and a genius for putting aside his pride and asking England for help and his efforts did an untold amount of good for his people.
>Lol please God no.
Sweden was a small (not geographically obviously) country formed from tiny little tribes into an imperial power with arguably the best army in the world who rekt much bigger countries like Russia and Poland.
Pretty much wrote the manual on how to be a succesful small country.
Brehon law was cool but it was bound to be replaced at some stage. If Brian Boru was to be a Harald Bluetooth type and unite the country he would have had to do away with a lot of Brehon law.
I meant in terms of what the future would hold for Ireland.
I wasn't looking forward for 1000 years after unification a bunch of cultural relativists insist that we're not a real nation and embark on a culturally suicidal immigration policy.
t. An Irishman
>Lol please God no.
Sweden went from an undeveloped tribal backwater, like Ireland, to a great power with arguably the best army in the world, all without foreign conquest. Pretty much wrote the book on being a successful small country.
Brehon law is cool but not conducive to centralisation and if Brian Boru wanted to permanently unite the country he would have had to get rid of a lot of it.
Sorry my internet's gay, I thought the post failed so I rewrote it.
>I wasn't looking forward for 1000 years after unification a bunch of cultural relativists insist that we're not a real nation and embark on a culturally suicidal immigration policy.
Why would you think that's what I was talking about when I mentioned Sweden?
I was obviously talking about their military prowess as a small country versus large empires. As Ireland we have pretty shitty neighbours, England and France are two of the most powerful countries in European history. The only small country I can think of to have that kind of success is Sweden who rekt Russia, the PLC and at one point controlled half of the HRE. It helps that they came from a similar backwards shithole status as Ireland.
t. also Irish.
>Scots pushed their shit in big time in Ulster
not at all. The English rekt both the Presbyterians and the Irish in Ulster, the Presbyterian scots didn't really beat anyone and the highlanders were on Ireland's side.
if you check the talk page you'll see how buttflustered the editors are over how an Irish tribe known as the Scotti settled the region and displaced the native Picts around 500 AD.
Any knowledgable /his/torians that can share some interesting facts about his regime or for that matter of his personal life?
I'd like to discuss the amount of brainwashing he did to his people without mass media.
Since the fucker went full rural how did he keep up with the act of ascending himself to godhood ala Kim Jong-IL without newspapers and television?
I dont think it would have been possible, are there any examples of countries fighting against similar odds which held out? Considering our proximity to what was becoming the western superpower
>The English rekt both the Presbyterians
The English were on the same side as the presbyterians. Even if they were at odds how do you explain the supremacy of Scots culture and the prevalence of the presbyterian church over the anglican?
Wiki warrior I see
No credible historian subscribes to the "gaelic invasion" hypothesis. It was consigned to the dustbin along with almost every other >muh ebin invasion meme.
>well if he would've survived alongside his original heir Murchad who was acclaimed as a worthy successor to Brian then all would be grand
This is still a system that depend on having extremely competent successors that are universally accepted, ad infininitum.
If Brian could have unified Ireland so long as there was never anyone else who wanted a shot at the thrown, he never would have unified Ireland.
Perpetually at war with England from the 11th century until the turn of the 17th when Elizabeth I of England died, allowing James VI of Scotland to unite the crowns and end fighting between the two countries. Parliaments united a century later to create the UK.
Heaviest fighting was during the Wars of Scottish Independence in the early 14th century. England never again attempted to subjugate Scotland after the second war but fighting persisted in the Borderlands and both countries make excursions into each others territory over the years.
>The English were on the same side as the presbyterians.
No they weren't. Cromwell was a puritan who though presbyterians were heretics and he was butthurt over the events of the wars of the three kingdoms so he imposed Anglican supremacy over the presbyterians. Presbyterians were disadvantaged under the penal laws also, though not to the same extent as Catholics.
>Even if they were at odds how do you explain the supremacy of Scots culture and the prevalence of the presbyterian church over the anglican?
NI today is 19% Presbyterian and 13% anglican so the difference isn't too big. there was an influx of Presbyterians in later years due to famine in western Scotland, and they were traditionally the poorer of the two meaning higher birth rates. On top of this, Scots culture is more fashionable and many people of Anglican background claim Scots culture as their own.