Talk:History of Ireland

Gaelic scots

I am hazy on the details, but I understand 5th C emigration from what is now Ireland formed a large part of the mixture that is modern Scots. This seems to be missing from the article. Does anyone have some good sources? Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no historical or archaeological evidence to suggest there was ever any large scale migration or invasion from Ireland to Western Scotland. Other than the spread of the Gaelic culture/language. However this is quite simply a case of cultural assimilation. People in the western isles of Scotland were isolated from the Picts and Brythons by the Cairngorm mountains. It was far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 odd miles across the sea than it was to navigate the Cairngorm mountains to deal with the mostly hostile Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would be adopted from the Irish. So no it wouldn't be wise to add that into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence to suggest a large scale Irish invasion or migration took place in Western Scotland. An entire country doesn't just adopt the culture of another country simply because they trade with them. See for example the Dál Riata. Iamdmonah (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Arrival" of the Celts

Though it may be literally correct, and has 2 ref (no page numbers though), to just say "The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of small groups of Celtic speaking people into Ireland..." with no context is misleading. An imported upper class is only one explanation for the arrival of "Celtic" La Tène style material culture, and many specialists believe that Ireland had already been using a Celtic language well before any putative arrival in this period. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, as has been discussed in the past, there is no real evidence for the arrival of Celtic peoples as such, but merely of Celtic artefacts. We have lots of evidence of trade but not of significant migration. It is a 19C error that has become enshrined in "ev'ry skool boy no". --Red King (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is now more generally agreed that instead of a large migration of Celtic people or upper-class - it was more the migration of Celtic culture that was introduced via numerous methods. Just like how Americanisms have made their way across the Atlantic and can be found ever more across these isles. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the very newest school, not even a decade old but rapidly growing, is that the Atlantic peoples already were Celtic or proto-Celtic speaking, or that variety of Indo-European which became it, as early or before those in Central Europe, no Iron Age migrations required. This would appear to be supported by the most recent genetic studies, which show that the earlier theory that the peoples of the Atlantic and British Isles were of Paleolithic descent is wrong (and politically motivated). They probably arrived in/with the Neolithic and were Indo-European speakers. I'm working on some other things right now but will try to remember to get back to you. But have a look at the contributions I made to Irish people#Genetics a few months ago to start. DinDraithou (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The linguistic aspect of the theory is older than that. Changes need to be carried through to Prehistoric Ireland and Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles, & I hope someone will do it. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish nobility

Could I invite views on Irish nobility. The article has changed in focus since the contributions of DinDriathou. Before then, the article pertained to Gaelic nobles, peers of the Lordship of Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland and peers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It then changed to refer to Gaelic nobles, "medieval nobility of foreign origin" and stated that "nobility originating from the so-called Kingdom of Ireland onwards, and with few exceptions not generally accepted as 'Irish'".

I raised POV/V issues with these statements. A series of moves/reverts have put the article now at Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland. While that is not altogether a problem topic, it is quite an odd choice for an article and it is not clear what the article is "about". In my view, one article dealing with Gaelic titles (including Gaelicised Normans) and one dealing with "English" titles (see Peerage of Ireland) might be more appropriate.

That may be the intention behind the move, but other views would be appreciated.--RA (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not wild about either the old version or the new one. Neither of them seems to know what it's about. What's wanted, it seems to me, is a collaborative effort to organise the article in some sort of coherent way e.g. Pre-Norman Taoisigh, historic Gaelic nobles, historic Anglo-Irish nobles, current existing families and current heads, and to decide on a consistent format i.e. list, text or text followed by list. As it stands (or as it stood last week) it is unhelpful to those who know the subject and unintelligible to those (including me) who don't.

I am cross-posting this to the article talk page.

Also, I'm not convinced of the desirability of using the "History of Ireland" article as a WP:WikiProject Irish history. Either issues like these should be raised at WikiProject Ireland or a history WikiProject should be created. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It does resemble WP:Canvassing behavior. DinDraithou (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not what I meant! Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What? DinDraithou (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor is entitled to highlight a discussion in another forum. That is not canvassing. I was querying whether the talk page of a different, but more widely read, article ought to be used as a forum. That's all. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind "non-neutral manner" or " the use of tone, wording, or intent", right? DinDraithou (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

History (of Ireland) task force

A proposal has been posted to WikiProject Ireland to create a task force for History of Ireland articles as a part of WikiProject Ireland. Comments welcome. --RA (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

History by ethnic group

If the topic of this article is history of an Ireland as geographical phenomenon or state, then it should not be categorized in History by ethnic group?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have removed it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Method of the arrival of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers

Take the lead... or not.

I have moved the method of migration out of the lead section and into the prehistory section because I don't think it adds anything to the lead and it can be covered later in the article. Personally I find the lead for this article to be a bit cluttered so to me this was an easy way to make it a little less so. Either way I think this point can be considered independently from the other point. Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

By "boot" or by boat

While I haven't read The Course of Irish History (I have a copy being shipped to me currently) even if it does say the earliest hunter-gatherers probably arrived via a land bridge it is just one source, there are other sources that are pretty adamant that there were no land bridges by the time Ireland was being settled as well as other sources that recognizes there are multiple positions. Having a source saying the land bridge was probably how Ireland was settled followed by another source saying Ireland was obviously colonised long after any land bridge had been severed would be confusing to read; having a third source stating that the means of migration is still debated would clear things up but then it would make the first two sources redundant. As such I removed the statement saying the migration via a land bridge was probable and replaced it (in a different section) with a sourced statement saying the way people first came to Ireland is still in debate.

Here's a few relevant references to the issue:

About 10,500 or 11,000 years before the present (BP) a period of severe cold and tundra-like conditions returned, known as the Nahanagan Stadial or Cold Phase after the site in Co. Wicklow where it was first documented. The climate must then have resembled that of northern Siberia today. Pollens of Zone III show that plants of more northern type had appeared and that woodland was reduced. Ice probably increased in mountain areas and the relative sea level, which had risen during the interstadial stage, was once again lowered. Areas of land would have been exposed off the coasts and, according to some authorities, land bridges may have existed between Ireland and Britain during this time. This is a matter of continuing controversy and some scholars hold that in all probability no firm land connections existed after about 20,000 years ago (Devoy 1983). The resolution of this question would have important implications for the immigration of humans to Ireland.

— Michael J. O'Kelly, Early Ireland: an introduction to Irish prehistory, page7-8; 1989

The question as to when the land link between Ireland and Britain was finally severed is one which has been hotly debated for decades, but there is now a growing consensus among scholars in favour of the existence of one or more land-bridges between Ireland and Britain for a sufficient length of time after the onset of the warm Littletonian phase for people to have arrived in Ireland across dry land.

— Peter Harbison, Pre-Christian Ireland: from the first settlers to the early Celts, page 18; 1994

The question of the origins of these early mesolithic groups remains a matter for debate and, indeed, it is not as yet fully clear to what extent they came to Ireland on foot or in boats. An immediate background for the Irish mesolithic somewhere in western Britain – perhaps Scotland, England, or Wales – is likely and it is not impossible that the first inhabitants of what came to be the island of Ireland arrived by walking.

— Michael J. O'Kelly, A New History of Ireland: Prehistoric and early Ireland, Ch. 3 - Ireland before 3000 B.C., page 66-67;2005

Britain and Ireland did not assume their present forms simultaneously, and this had serious consequences for their ecology and the hunter gatherers that lived there. Ireland was cut off by the sea at a time when Britain was still attached to the European mainland. This happened well before Ireland had any inhabitants and certainly before a number of animal species coul have become established ... The earliest settlement of Ireland seems to have taken place by boat around 8000 BC (Woodman 2004) ... Ireland was obviously colonised long after any land bridge had been severed, and there are points in common between the material culture of its first inhabitants and the artefacts found in Britain.

— Richard Bradley, The prehistory of Britain and Ireland, page 8, 8 & 9-10;2007

Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though the edit is no longer in dispute I have just received a copy of The Course of Irish History so I thought I'd add this for completeness. While it does say a land bridge may have existed up to 6000 BC the only thing it specifically says about the way in which the first inhabitants arrived is, "...and at about 6000 BC, or perhaps a little earlier, they moved still farther west, probably across the narrow straights of water towards the highlands of Antrim and Wicklow as these could be clearly seen from the British shoreline.” (p32) Which is at odds with the way it was cited. Jamie (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is now generally accepted that Ireland has been an island for much longer than had previously been thought and became separated from the continent before 10 000 BC. Therefore, if the earliest modern humans arrived after 8000 BC they would have had to come by crossing sea. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

New evidence shows humans were in Ireland around 12,500 BC. These people's ancestors could have come to Ireland via the Cornwall land bridge which may have existed until after 14,000 BC. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The bear bone indicates Modern Humans entered Ireland during the period between 17,500 and 12,000 years ago, a warmer period referred to as the Bølling-Allerød that allowed the rehabilitation of northern areas of Europe by roaming hunter-gatherers, long before the Younger Dryas took hold. DunmoreTom (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Which bear bone? Where? and according to whom? (aka, citation needed). --Red King (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Out-Of-Date Genetic Views

I removed the extended comment about Iberian origins in the second sentence because, although it was a popular view in the early part of this millennium, it was based on a sample of a small amount of data (6 DNA points). The larger amounts of data that have become available since 2008, involving 27-111 such points and certain mutations (like L21) unknown earlier, point to a different conclusion, as is summarized in extensive online articles like "Genetic Ancestry" found at http://thecampblogbymike.com/genetic-ancestry/ and "The Neolithic Advance and the Success of Genetic Y-DNA Marker R1b" found at http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-neolithic-advance/. While the scientific advances represented in this new data are too small and recent to have merited broad publication, it would be a shame to let a view that is generally agreed to be inaccurate remain in the introduction. It is a small point in any case that is better left to more substantive discussion later where the fact that the "origins" probably differ by gender in any case can be included as well.CSProfBill (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:1st-century Irish people

Category:1st-century Irish people, and other categories regarding 1st-century->4th-century Irish figures, are within the scope of this WikiProject, and have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy lead

It seems like a very long lead and it still doesn't mention the Hunger. I was about to add it but then I decided it might be better to cut the rest down instead. Or both. Any thoughts? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Heading text

Distortions in the writing of Irish history

The history of Ireland as commonly taught is a propaganda version of Irish history. As Napoleon is reputed to have said, 'L'histoire n'est qu'une fable que l'on accepte, which has been translated as history is lies which are no longer contested.

Irish history was largely invented in the 19th century. With regard to it one can confidently say:

There never was a Celtic race to which Irish Catholics belong

The never was a race-specific Gaelic culture distinct from that of the Anglo-Saxons or other Germanic tribes

There never was a Norman invasion of Ireland comparable to that of England.

Ireland was never conquered by the English

Ireland was never occupied by the English

Ireland was never a feudal possession of England

Ireland was never held in subjection for several hundred years

There never was an unending struggle for freedom if only because the Irish chiefs and lords could never agree who should replace the king of England

Ireland was always a personal possession of the king of England, who was at the same time Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Count of Mortain etc.

There was a separate government of Ireland composed of Irishmen from 1171 until 1921 through which the lord and later king of Ireland had to govern Ireland. This Irish Government governed Ireland in its own interest not that of the king or lord

There never was an English policy of repression in Ireland or indeed any policy with regard to Ireland. English armies were only sent to Ireland if there was a danger of invasion by the Spanish or French.

All reputable Irish historians know these facts. But in more popular publications in the media and indeed in Wikipedia Catholic nationalist propaganda continues to surface. These are minor irritations individually, but in body contribute to a serious distortion of Irish history.

Recently I was doing research into Irish history in the 18th century and in particular the tiny French invasion in 1798. Different articles in Wikipedia dealt with the various battles, the numbers involved, the number of casualties and the actions involved and with a little flag over each.The Irish insurgents were marked with a green flag, and the Government's forces marked with the Union flag of England and Scotland. In only one case was the flag of Ireland given in addition to the Anglo-Scottish Union flag, though the vast number of contestants were from the Irish militia and yeomanry. The little flags, put in doubtless inadvertently gave completely the wrong impression. Needless to say it was never mentioned that Wolfe Tone the Irish leader of the rebellion was bent on setting up a quisling republic to be supported by France, and the French were to be paid by seizing all the gold and silver plate of the Government's supporters. French support did not come free or cheap.

Similarly, though in a different context I was watching a programme on television on the wreck of ships of the Spanish armada on the Irish coasts. The presenter said that the 'English' ordered that surviving Spanish soldiers should be killed. That was true as far as it went, but as far as I can see there was only one Englishman in a position of importance in Ireland at the time, the Lord Deputy.The massacres were carried out, where they were carried out by the soldiers of Gaelic chiefs. Other Gaelic chiefs saved to to see what money they could make from ransoms.

I have little hope or indeed little time to correct all the minor points of error that crop up in the numerous articles on Ireland, but at least I hope that the editorial board will try to eliminate distortions.

Newryensis (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are so right! But regrettably, there is no such editorial board or responibility in wikipedia, and every pupil can revert every article of a specialized professor.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Relations with Britain

Please edit the sentence here "Ireland in some ways was the first acquisition the British Empire."

I'm sure it's meant to say "Ireland in some ways was the first acquisition of the British Empire."

I'd do it myself but people here seem to get annoyed if you correct grammar and spelling issues without running it through talk first.

There's no page number given on the citation and I have no way of checking if this is an accurate quote. Can someone find where the book in question is referring to Ireland being the "first acquisition"? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a roughly equivalent statement on the first page though that "Ireland has often been described as both the first and the last colony of the British Empire". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a quote to this article. All you had to do was go to the article, go to the part that says "relations with Britain" and you'll see the error right there. What makes you think that I'd want you to change the quote of a citation? If what ever the citation links to (which it doesn't) and they had a grammar error in their book, or what ever that citation is supposed to be then don't you think that the citation source shouldn't be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've no idea what you're trying to say but there's an implication that I didn't understand what you were requesting in the first place. Just to clarify, I understood perfectly that you were pointing out a simple gramatical error. The point I raised calls into question the quotation in its entirity (the quote of a citation?) and especially the use of the word "acquisition". What page number is the quote taken from? The reference does not provide a page number and it is rather difficult to check without one. I ran a quick check and could not find it. So rather than simple "fix" the grammatical error and potentially propagate an incorrect reference/quotation, it is best to "fix" the meaning to keep it in line with the given reference. In my response I tried to make allowances for the fact that there is a chance that somewhere in the book there *is* a reference, which I missed, that states that Ireland was the first acquisiton of the British Empire, hence the reason I asked for another person to check. If this sentence is not supported, I suggest that the sentence should read along the lines of "Ireland has often been described as the first and last colony of the British Empire". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If the citation leads nowhere then maybe the whole section should be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308225201/http://insideireland.ie/2012/03/07/cso-figures-reveal-unemployment-levels-59631/ to http://insideireland.ie/2012/03/07/cso-figures-reveal-unemployment-levels-59631/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502020945/http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html to http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have begun a rewrite of the introduction to this article which is in a terrible state. The overview is both incoherent and biased, perhaps unintentionally, but enough to be seriously misleading. There seems to be serious confusion between the different groups of medieval irelanf and numerous other problems. I will do what i can, but it may take some time, and hopefully people see an improvement. Article is c-class which is disappointing for something so important. Kodai (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No doubt a good idea, but I have reverted the change of BC/BCE date styles per WP:ERA, and the lead is now waaaay too long - see WP:LEAD. Aim for 4 longer paras. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Period 1014-1166

Someone has to fill this period, there is a gap of about 150 years of Irish history here. I Iamdmonah (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Landbridge

"humans crossed a landbridge during the warm period" > You completely confuse the effects of warming vs. cooling: In warmer periods, the Ocean lever rises ("transition"), while in colder periods (e.g., the glacial) it falls!!!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You aren't allowing for the effects of glaciation. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Think you might be on the wrong talk page mate. Iamdmonah (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Poor knowledge

What about all the megaliths of middle neolithic "Megalithic Ireland" listed in Sanchez-Quinto (2019)??? Poor knowledge!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Norman invasion

The lead section contains the statement, 'The Norman invasion in 1169 resulted again in a partial conquest of the island and marked the beginning of more than 800 years of English political and military involvement in Ireland'.

This makes no sense at all. The Normans invaded England in 1066 and, after subjugating the English, went on to use England as a base from which to invade. It what way is this the English invading Ireland? Elvis Plasterboard (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is the conventional way of putting it; the King of England was ultimately in charge, sort of. In fact it was Wales used as a base, & the first Norman forces were probably all French, with Welsh in the lower ranks, and very likely not an English-speaker among them. But myths die hard. Nobody likes to be invaded by the Welsh. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Suppressing Irish independence movement

I should like to ask two questions concerning the history of Ireland at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century: 1) I read in Leon Uris' Redemption there was gunrunning from England to Ireland in this period. Is it true, please? And if so, in which area of Ireland were the arms hidden? 2) Which police did suppress the Irish independence movement? I know there existed the Royal Irish Constabulary, but the majority of its members were Catholic.

Thank you for your answer. --Henriku (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ireland and the Metal Ages

The article makes reference to the Bronze Age having arrived in Ireland by 2000 BC, although it passes over Ireland's transitory copper age, which commenced with the mining operations around the lakes of Killarney around three centuries earlier.

It is a something of a surprising lapse, given that the archaeological evidence indicates that the mining of copper in the south-west kicked off the metal mining industry in both Ireland and Britain. Inchiquin (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Viking introduction of Ireland to international trade

Would the potential trade with the Roman’s earlier in the article, as well as cultural and potential exchange of goods with Celtic cultures on the European continent not have already counted as international trade centuries earlier? 216.232.4.205 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

False information on Google question

a Google question that asked " Who did ireland originally belong to?" The answer is highlighted as the "United kingdom". This isnt true. The highlight needs to mention the "Tuatha de Dannan" and the "Sidhe", they were originally the inhabitants and owners of Ireland. They are only seen as mythological people because invaders chose to name them so as a means to wipe them from the slate of history so to take control.they were very real original tribes of Ireland and the rightful "owners". Celtgal (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't run google. The article is clear enough, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)