Ireland thread: Wishing we were relevant edition
100 Year Anniversary of the Easter Rising is coming up fast, and the question I have for you fellas is:
If Ireland had managed to Unite and stay united, whether through Brian Boru's based antics or some other means, what possibility or capacity would they have had for outward expansion?
Were Irish warriors actually famed for being bretty gud? Is there a scenario in which part of the world not on the island of Ireland could have been under Irish control?
Were we relevant?
>>674830
Ireland is very relevant to American history.
>William of Malmesbury's humorous anecdote illustrates both the character of John Scotus Eriugena and the position he occupied at the French court. The king having asked, "Quid distat inter sottum et Scottum?" (what separates a sot (drunkard) from an Irishman?) and Eriugena having replied, "Tabula tantum" (Only a table), the implication being that King Charles himself was a drunkard.
Based Eriugena bringing the bantz
>>674850
>bantz have always been in the irish
It's a good feeling m8
we are too out of the way geo-strategicly. only relevant because of migration
Great place to start your first campaign in CK2
>HahA references xD
>>674865
>Still no Brian Boru campaign
Makes me mad to this day.
I am curious as to whether Irish warriors were as based as some people always say on here-I know Ulster apparently had some pretty goddamned good riflemen in WW1, but other than that I dunno.
The other thing is that whole "we preserved holy texts and saved the west" or whatever. Seems a bit exaggerated.
>>674830
>If Ireland had managed to Unite and stay united, whether through Brian Boru's based antics or some other means, what possibility or capacity would they have had for outward expansion?
Depends entirely on how it was run. Sweden managed it, they even did a good job, so it isn't impossible. One could argue that Portugal is equally irrelevant and they went conquering around the world. All complete conjecture, and most likely we would have ended up as an irrelevant fringe country like we are now.
>Were Irish warriors actually famed for being bretty gud?
As part of a well equipped and organised army Irish people were well regarded. Irish mercenaries were a feature of the European and later American landscapes for centuries. Armies in Ireland were generally fairly shite due to the lack of organisation and infrastructure. All that our economic and political landscape could properl support was guerillas, the impact of which was lessened by the exportation of young men to fight in Europe and later the British empire and America.
>Were we relevant?
Ayy lmao obviously not. We were just about worth mentioning.
In History, Ireland is like the that school from half way across the country that you do shared exchange with.
Some of their pupils will come play sports with you and be fucking based at it, they're all fiercely proud of where they come from and happy to shit all over your larger, more superior school.
But when you go on a field trip to their school it's sort of shoddy and poorly held together and none of the pupils talk to one another. You don't bring it up to them though, because they'd all kick your ass.
There's nothing the irish can't do, except Unite.
>>674850
fortykeks.manuscript
I must give this brief reminder:
IRA did nothing wrong.
>>676138
The Provos were a bunch of cunts. Cunts with a legitimate cause, but cunts.
>>676138
*Originally were doing nothing wrong but are now literally just armed thugs no better than the fucking UDA or ISIS
>>676148
Well the Protestant community of Northern Ireland were violent and oppressive toward the catholic irish community there, so not much wonder they weren't very nice back. That said, I will always say that the cause was just but now an armed militia has no place in NI.
>>674830
>possibility or capacity would they have had for outward expansion?
Scotland?
>Were Irish warriors actually famed for being bretty gud?
Galloglasses, yes. Before that, Irish warriors fought with no armor, shields or even helmets, and mostly used clubs as weapons.
>>676138
>murder isn't wrong!
Christian detected.
>>674830
>Were we relevant?
The highest point of your relevance was in the years immediately after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, when you guys basically saved the Latin tradition singlehandedly.
Isle of Saints and Scholars was a real meme once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Scottish_mission
>The Latin term Scotti refers to the Gaelic-speaking people of Ireland and the Irish who settled in western Scotland. In early medieval times Ireland was known not only as Éire but also as Scotia, a name that the Romans used at times to refer to Ireland as well as Scotland. By the end of the 11th century it generally referred to Scotland, which had become Gaelicised by settlers from Ireland, and from where the name Scotland derives. The Romans also gave Ireland the name "Hibernia". Thus, the "Scots" missionaries who were so influential in the early Church history of Germany included men from both modern countries Ireland and Scotland.[1]
>>674830
>Were Irish warriors actually famed for being bretty gud?
have you never heard of the Wild Geese?
>>677042
>Galloglasses, yes. Before that, Irish warriors fought with no armor, shields or even helmets, and mostly used clubs as weapons.
The fuck are you talking about. Gallowglasses were actually less useful as mercs than Kerns and nobody fought with clubs and no armour.
>>677221
Kerns dates from the same time. Before Ireland was "contacted" by the Vikings, the Irish still fought as they had in the time of Cu Chulain.
