h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

He's officially British now - mind you I could make a couple of rugby jokes here, but I'll restrain myself

Here's what I got from a detailed reading:

Pre-history --> Prehistory
Footnote 1, about the Ice Age, should be part of main text.
Eliminate first person references: I suppose, I suspect etc.
Put in the word 'introduced' before ' a national fondness'.
who were armed to the teeth --> armed to the teeth
(there were too many who's in that sentence)
"Protestants and Catholics would fight like cats in a basket until the end of the century" - what century? Aren't they still at it?
Your description of the famine suggests that the large population of the Ireland was suddenly reduced from what it had always been. In fact the population rose from 4 million in 1750 to 8 million in 1845 due to the introduction of the "Lumper" potato. This was an amazing vegetable which although tasting disgusting allowed twice as many people to live off the land. When this crop failed, the results were catastrophic.
The statement about politicians and businessmen looks a little bit lost, standing on its own where it does; leave it out or elaborate on it. Two or three sentences should do.
separatist, movement --> separatist movement

Excellent Entry! You certainly set yourself a tough task, but I think you've done a very fine job!

One phrase puzzled me: the description of Ireland as being 'ideologically positioned "somewhere between Boston and Berlin"'. This appears to be a quote: who said it, and what do you think (s)he meant?

Also, although you have mentioned how the Republic has recently moved away from its previous domination by the Church, I think it's fair to say that it's been a long struggle. For a long time, Ireland had unusually conservative laws on issues like divorce, contraception and abortion. I'm not sure to what extent it still does, so I'll leave it to you to decide whether anything needs to be added on those subjects.

Great work, though!

Gnomon - Good suggestions. I will try to include them this evening.

Ormondroyd - Thanks a lot! The politician who made the Boston / Berlin reference is a current Irish government minister called Mary Harney. She still continues to get a lot of flak for this comment in some circles, but many observers would agree with her. The suggestion is that Ireland agrees with European integration, but it has its limits. Those limits are set by our common language, strong emotional and family ties with the US, and our favourable corporate taxation policies. Having low taxes here is a cornerstone of the recent Irish economic boom, which saw one quarter of US high-tech investment come to Ireland, and unemployment slashed from 20% to 5% in 10 years. I think there is a real fear here that if we are integrated fully into the EU, that the long term prospects for the country are not good. I think it should not be a choice between one or the other. We have good links to both entities, so why compromise it?

Totally agree with you on the "not there yet" issue - I had it added as a footnote. The abortion issue is raging right now (again).

Gnomon,

I have made the changes - thanks for the suggestions. I have reworded the Ice Age piece, and eliminated the first person references. I have also got rid of the reference to beer, replacing it by money (without one, you can't have the other ). Interestingly enough, one website I checked has made a connection between the Viking invasion and the Irish/British succeptability to coronary heart disease, but I have left it out for the time being.

I have left the reference to "cats in a basket" alone, because in general, paragraphs are divided into centuries, and because the 18th century was actually quite peaceful in Ireland until the end of the century. I have also left the famine reference alone, as I don't think the prior increase in population adds significantly to the story. As I said - it's a very brief history!

I have dropped the reference to the tribunals - it's historial significance is doubtful.

Thanks again

Woodpigeon

Scouts please note. This is an excellent entry. It is accurate and relevant, laying out the most important events in Irish history in an easily understandable way.

Some more minor changes:

began to disappeared into --> began to disappear into

Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, not 1971.

In the sentence starting "In addition, a large Catholic ...", you really don't need "In addition".

Well spotted - thank you!


Woodpigeon

just a quick thought, potatoes were unknown in europe till after the discovery america (land of potatoes), when did they get introduced to ireland and what were the crops before it, why could the starving not revert to it afterwards?

FABT

FABT, the potato became a major crop in Ireland in about 1750. A particular variety of potato, the "lumper" was developed which produced an enormous yield. The potatoes would grow anywhere. Areas which had never been cultivated were planted with potatoes. Although it tasted disgusting, it was very nutritious; a potato and buttermilk diet provided everything a person needed. As a result of this miracle crop, the population of Ireland grew and grew. A hundred years later, it had doubled. In 1845, a potato disease called "potato blight" completely wiped out the potato harvest. There was no other food. It was not possible to go back to the older crops, because they had never been able to grow in the places the potatoes grew and they had never been enough to support the massive (overinflated) population. Of course, food could have been shipped in from England, but the people in England never knew there was a problem. The incompetent land owners in Ireland did not want to admit that they had mismanaged their estates, so they tried to brush the problem under the carpet.

Woodpigeon has decided not to put all this into his entry, trying to keep it brief.

ok, but it is all very interesting. could there be a appendix article? or perhaps a set of mini articles got to by links form the main entry. cos you all know so much stuff about this and it would be nice to have it in the guide

FABT

I think the Irish potato famine deserves an entry all of its own, because it is *the* most significant event in Irish history, and has made a huge mark on Irish consciousness, whether we realise it or not. As Gnomon says, the article is not meant to go in depth on any one topic (after all, whole books have been written on subjects that I have just alluded to here). I'm up for writing an article on the famine, but I will appreciate any help I can get.

Thanks,

Woodpigeon.

A trip to Strokestown House might help. There is an interesting Famine museum there.

I don't want to harp on abut St. Patrick but you make him sound as if he was a poor, uneducated ex-slave.
Why aren't the Welsh like the Irish if the Celts gave them a typically Irish attitude towards life?

Alji

I think the Welsh are not like the Irish because of the influence of Protestantism. I believe many Welsh are Calvinist Methodists. This religion gives you quite a different outlook on life to the traditional Irish one.

St Patrick did start out as a poor uneducated ex-slave, but he fled to Gaul, where he became educated.

I meant that there is a particularly Irish attitude (exemplified perhaps in the phrase "ah sure, it'll be grand"), which must have Celtic origins originally, because we definitely didn't get it from the English!

I don't know what the Welsh attitude towards life is. Maybe it is similar, (it certainly seems like that during rugby weekends in Dublin), but I hope you don't see it as an "either / or" situation.

I know that the Welsh Celts (the Britons) have slightly different origins to the Irish Celts (the Gaels), as evidenced by the quite different native languages, but this has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere in H2G2. What impact this had, I don't know.

Woodpigeon

*stops ing at mental image of 2 million withered potato plants being brushed under a gigantic carpet*

Hiya, nice entry on a tricky subject,

I am going to be a little negative, but please don't take it badly, it's only intended as constructive criticism and *optional* suggestions. The piece works as it is, and has clearly gone down well in PR, so you can take it or leave it, as far as my comments go, I think.

Here goes:

>>
So it is thus surprising that it took the efforts of an ex-slave from Roman Britain to revolutionise this status quo.
<<

I don't really get this; what do you want to imply here? Intuitively, I understand something different to what I think this sentence actually says.



>>
Very soon, the people of Ireland had taken the religion to their heart. Christianity became the dominant religion of the entire island...
<<

I never understand how these rapid mass conversions of illiterate populations are supposed to have taken place. As far as I can see, it was more a question of turning up with some knowledge and proclaiming the authority of the Church, getting the local chieftans in on it (often with a promise of fat rewards as a result of the monks' efficient administrative techniques, getting the most out of freely handed over and previously mis-managed estates) and starting to write up lists of who owes the Church what. Course, some would consider that a cynical attitude.



>>
By the turn of the first millennium, Ireland was a heady mix of Celts and naturalised Vikings, when along came English warriors, armed to the teeth, who gave themselves the rather unimpressive name "Normans".
<<

I think you are getting things a bit confused here. The Normans got their name from the days of the Viking invasions - Normans *means* 'men from the north' and is the name given to the waves of Viking invaders (at the same time as their peers were raping and pillaging along the coasts of the British Isles) who settled in what is modern Normandy. The Viking invasions followed a general pattern, starting with sporadic coastal raiding parties, then better organised river expeditions further inland, finally settling wherever they could conquer some territory, making peace with the neighbouring chieftans and integrating themselves into the community. This is how the Duchy of Normandy was created, officially recognised by the French monarch in the late tenth century and prosperous enough to mount a successful invasionn of England to claim the English throne in 1066.

The biggest star of British history, William the Bastard, aka the Conqueror, was a Norman and brought with him an army of Norman nobles and their men at arms. This is where the distinction between 'Norman' English and 'Anglo-Saxon' English comes in. I am finally getting to the point!

I don't think William himself had much time for Ireland, and nor did his immediate successors. My source suggests 1171 as the key year in the English conquest of Ireland; that is when Henry II is recorded as having 'completed' the conquest of Ireland (I don't know how 'complete' the conquest was in 1171 ,of course).

I think it is fair to say that Ireland was by no means a tranquil land of peace and harmony pre-1171. There were many quarrelling tribes and chieftans, struggling for power and the best lands (although these days the rugged beauty of the Emerald Isle is no doubt a major selling point for the tourist industry, 800 years ago those who wished to prosper probably needed to be quite picky about which spots they wanted for themselves).

So, in 1166 (I realise you have steered clear of including too many dates, but this is just for your info, ) one such regional king, Dermot MacMurrough is supposed to have asked Henry II of England (a huge figure in English history who really deserves a guide entry) to come to his aid in Ireland with an army. It seems he (MacM) was having particular problems with someone called Rory O'Connor (great moniker! ). Now, this may only be the English side of the story, and I'm not trying to legitimise these actions. Just that it doesn't gel with your version. Perhaps the army could be best described as 'Anglo-Norman', because although the regime in England was still based on the Norman conquest 100 years earlier, the Anglo-Saxon population had by this stage regained some influence.

Henry II was born in mainland France, became Duke of Normandy and count of Maine and Anjou on the death of his father, married Eleanour of Aquitaine, thus aquiring control over the vast and rich south-western French province. He was already an immensely powerful French nobleman at the age of 14, and he then spent his adolescence helping his mother in the struggle to wrest his maternal inheritance, the throne of England, from the 'usurper' Stephen of Blois. When he became king of England in 1154 he immediately set about expanding his domains in England, pushing back the Scots and Welsh and consolidating his control over the whole realm. Ireland was a natural progression for him, in many ways. I'm not sure this comes across in your para on The Normans.

eg:
>>
Normans' more austere English cousins,
>>

??



Now, I really *do* think it would be a shame to bury the info about The Pale in a footnote. It is interesting to note that in the early 13thC, following Henry II's conquest of Ireland and the submission of most of the Irish Kings, there was a major influx of English settlers, mostly (logically enough) into the south-east quarter of the island. Opportunistic nobles attracted by the land-grabbing prospects poured in with royal authority and set themselves up handsomely in exchange for imposing the royal writ. Ireland was over the sea and communications within the country were not up to much. Landlords found it easy to rake in the rewards without doing very much in the way of imposing the King's writ. for 300 years this situation gradually developed until by 1500 this area of English domination had been greatly reduced and only the area directly surrounding Dublin (about 50 miles by 30) was really 'English'. This was partly a result of reduced numbers of colonists, partly the Irish succeeding in throwing off the yolk of English oppression in their lands and partly incompetence or willful mis-management on the part of the landlords.



So, we get to Henry VIII, but it was his *Catholic* daughter, 'Bloody' Mary I, not Elizabeth, who initiated the plantation program (dispossession of Irish landlords, colonisation of Irish lands with English landlords), installing *Catholic* English in place of Gaelic Irish landlords. Elizabeth continued the policy, with the slight difference that *she* sent protestant settlers. These were the years of bloody religious conflict all over Europe and Catholic King Philip II of Spain became the great enemy of Elizabeth I's protestant England. It seems that this is a critical moment when the anti-English Irish aligned themselves with the Catholic church and Spain, arguably primarily for political reasons, to win powerful allies against the oppressive English rule. This Catholic/nationalist vs protestant/unionist division is all too present in modern Ireland.

You give the Battle of Kinsale as a reference for the final English victory, but I would propose a slightly later event, given the great name of The Flight of the Earls. In 1595 an Irish rebel leader, Hugh O'Neill, 3rd Earl of Tyrone, offered the Irish crown (Henry VIII had proclaimed Ireland to be a Kingdom in 1541) to Philip II. Although he failed to deliver, O'Neill survived to fight another day and fought on with others until the Flight of the Earls in 1607, when they fled to the continent, leaving the remaining Gaelic rebel forces in Ireland without effective leadership for some forty years.



Which gets us to Green and Orange. You seem to miss out on the fact that a civil war raged in England between the time of the 1641 rebellion and Cromwell's massacres at Drogheda and Wexford. I agree that anti-Catholic attitudes had been fiercely re-inforced by tales of the Irish atrocities against English colonists and protestants generally. But in the meantime there was the whole business of the execution of the king and declaration of the Commonwealth.

The heir to the throne, backed by the forces of Catholic Spain, was actively trying to gain power in Ireland in order to use it as a launching pad to restore the monarchy in England. Cromwell was not just in it for a good old crack at the hated Irish; there were real political factors involved, and there's little doubt that, brutal as his methods were and futile and divisive as his victory was in the long run, (since his enemy eventually came back to power soon after his [Cromwell's] death and the seeds were being planted for 350 years of bloody struggle), the Lord Protector achieved exactly what he set out to in Ireland - to prevent it becoming a base for a Catholic/royalist campaign against the newly founded Commonwealth.

Your description of 'Subsequent events' seems a little shaky; Charles II was only restored on the proviso that he would convert to protestantism, renounce Catholicism forever and uphold various strict anti-Catholic laws enacted by parliament in the interregnum. Yes, James II *was* pro-Catholic, but look where it got him! Deposed, beaten at the Boyne and packed off to end his days in pious anonymity in the French Capital.

The Battle of the Boyne can be seen as a key point between Ireland's struggles to remain independent, and the subsequent century of protestant ascendancy and Irish subordination to English authority. I missed the footnote at first; could that reference go in the body text?



The 19th C, pre-blight, there was Daniel O'Connell, aka 'The Liberator', founder of the Catholic Association and personally responsible to a great extent for securing the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829.

Post-blight, Young Ireland and the Fenian Society, and praps some mention of Gladstone resigning as prime minister *twice* because he put forward bills for Irish Home Rule and had them rejected by parliament.



Partial independence: No mention of the founding of Sinn Fein in 1907.

According to my book, a third Home Rule bill (1912) was *actually* passed (they had to ignore the Lords' veto) and should have become law in 1914. It seems parliament agreed to suspend it until the war was over (which, of course, everyone knew would be before Xmas!)

>>
... the Irish population outside of Ulster were actively demanding full independence from Ireland, and a vicious guerrilla war ensued when a government, openly hostile to Britain, was elected in 1919.
<<

What does this mean? "Independence from *Ireland*"? Govt of where that was hostile to Britain?



I think one of important 'string' attatched to the Anglo-Irish treaty that Irish people objected to was the oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Would you consider mentioning some of the key figures in the signing of the treaty and the subsequent civil war; Michael Collins, who had been a leader of the Easter Rising and active nationalist militant, but was hated by the anti-treaty group because he signed it. De Valera was the main force behind the anti-treaty forces that would be defeated in the civil war but he would eventually be instrumental in achieving Irish independence.



I too misunderstood your 'ideologically positioned' sentence: if it refers specifically to the Rep of Ireland's attitude towards Europe and the EEC, I think you need to make this clearer.



Wow, that seems like loads too much, hope you don't mind.

I know you wanted to keep this short, but I hope some of my comments might be useful, or at worst interesting 'further reading'.

Good luck with this and future entries,

seeya
spiff

I think we are more pessimistic, perhaps it's the beer making us optomistic.

As for olt Pat, it is said he was from a wealthy family. His parents were Calphurnius and Conchessa, his father belonged to a Roman family of high rank and held the office of decurio in Gaul or Britain, Conchessa was a near relative of the great patron of Gaul, St. Martin of Tours. He became a slave when, at the age of sixteen, he was carried off into captivity by Irish marauders and was sold to a chieftan named Milchu in Dalriada, a territory of the present county of Antrim

Alji

I've been Spiffed!

Thanks for what was a very comprehensive review! You have made many points which show a real knowledge of the topic. I certainly can't disagree with many of the points at all. I will try to address your points, and give you a quick explanation as to any changes made. Some of the points you have made here are entries on their own! My major purpose is to give a brief 1 or 2 page overview. If people are more interested they can read more. I am looking at the article from the point of view of brevity primarily, so I hope you understand that I can't take on board all your points.

1) Roman britain - This was intended as a follow on from the previous paragraph. Ireland not invaded by Roman Britain, yet it was a Romanised Briton who made the biggest change to Irish society. Anyway, I have made a small change to make this clearer.

2) Christianity - I will leave as is. I certainly agree with you that that might have been the mechanism, but I don't think it adds to the story.

3) Normans. No, I knew where the word came from. It was a sad attempt at humour. I'll leave it in. Yes, there is a lot more I could add, but I think it only gives someone else an opportunity to add more information in another entry. A common understanding from the Norman conquest was they naturalised pretty well into Irish life, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves". So much so, that in the Statutes of Kilkenny 1366, laws had to be passed to make them behave more, er, English! That was the point of the last sentence.

4)The Pale, I think I will leave as is as well. It's another story, which can be developed in another article.

5)You make some good points regarding Henry and Mary, which I will think about. I will try to factor this in if I can.

Oops - battery power has got me again. I will try to complete the reply tomorrow!

Woodpigeon

Spiff,

I can't find too many references to Mary I in the books I have examined. All point to the forceful plantation of Munster and Laois / Offaly during the time of Elizabeth I. If you don't mind, I will leave as is. I have added the Flight of the Earls in a footnote.

Cromwell - well, again, the history books show that he was fuelled by a hatred of Irish and Catholics with a level of extraordinary religious extremism. Certainly, part of his role in coming to Ireland was to eliminate any possible opposition to his rule, but I think "bloodthirsty determination" is being kind to his behaviour in Ireland. I have added the Battle of the Boyne into the main text.

Daniel O'Connell is good point, and I thought about while writing this initially. He is an important figure, and I mentioned his efforts in the easing of restrictions on Catholic practice. I'm wary of putting too many names however into the text.

The founding of Sinn Féin is definitely an event, but interestingly it can be difficult to define what is meant by Sinn Fein, since so many political groups in Ireland were known as Sinn Fein at one stage in their lives - this includes along with the current Sinn Fein : Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and elements of the current Labour Party, as well as more extremist elements of Irish republicanism. Also, Sinn Fein emerged from a long tradition of Irish republicanism, so I think the event itself is a detail.

Good catch on the "Independence from Ireland" bit.

I have added more explanation about Michael Collins, and I have provided slightly more information on the Boston/Berlin comment as footnotes.

Thanks a lot for the comments. Again to be brief, I have left many details out, and concentrated on the principal shaping events instead.

Woodpigeon

to Spiff on this very interesting discussion:
It's the "yoke" of English oppression, not the "yolk.