Ireland -- History; Ireland -- Politics and government; Irish question
Norman and French barons, with Welsh followers, and Flemings from
Pembroke, led the invasion that began in 1169. They were men trained
to war, with armour and weapons unknown to the Irish. But they owed no
small part of their military successes in Ireland to a policy of
craft. If the Irish fought hard to defend the lands they held in civil
tenure, the churches had no great strength, and the seizing of a
church estate led to no immediate rising out of the country. The
settled plan of the Normans, therefore, was to descend on defenceless
church lands, and turn them into Norman strongholds; in reply to
complaints, they pleaded that the churches were used by the hostile
Irish as storing places for their goods. Their occupation gave the
Normans a great military advantage, for once the churches were
fortified and garrisoned with Norman skill the reduction of the
surrounding country became much easier. The Irish during this period
sometimes plundered church lands, but did not occupy, annex, or
fortify them. The invaders meanwhile spread over the country. French
and Welsh and Flemings have left their mark in every part of Ireland,
by Christian names, by names of places and families, and by loan-words
taken into Irish from the French. The English who came over went
chiefly to the towns, many of them to Dublin through the Bristol
trade. Henry II himself crossed in 1171 with a great fleet and army to
over-awe his too-independent barons as well as the Irish, and from the
wooden palace set up for him in Dublin demanded a general oath of
allegiance. The Normans took the oath, with some churchmen and
half-a-dozen Irish chiefs.
In Henry's view this oath was a confession that the Irish knew
themselves conquered; and that the chief renounced the tribal system,
and handed over the land to the king, so that he as supreme lord of
all the soil could allot it to his barons, and demand in return the
feudal services common in Normandy or in England. No Irish chief,
however, could have even understood these ideas. He knew nothing of
the feudal system, nor of a landlord in the English sense. He had no
power to hand the land of the tribe over to any one. He could admit no
"conquest," for the seizing of a few towns and forts could not carry
the subjection of all the independent chiefdoms. Whatever Henry's
theory might be, the taking of Dublin was not the taking of an Irish
capital: the people had seen its founding as the centre of a foreign
kingdom, and their own free life had continued as of old. Henry's
presence there gave him no lordship: and the independent temper of
the Irish people was not likely, after their Danish experience, to be
cowed by two years of war. Some cunning explanation of the oath was
given to the Irish chiefs by the subtle Angevin king and his crafty
Norman counsellors--that war was to cease, that they were to rule as
fully and freely as before, and in recognition of the peace to give to
Henry a formal tribute which implied no dominion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account