LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave CELTIC-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Roman Genocide
From: michael helm <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:[log in to unmask]
Date:Wed, 16 Feb 1994 10:15:26 PST
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (42 lines)


On Feb 16, 10:57am, Joe Murphy wrote:
> Stepping on a pseudo-revolutionary soapbox for a moment, the "Roman" genocide
> of the Irish looks like normal political expansion to me. Not to say that it
 
? Whoa -- the Romans never conquered Ireland (at least, they
never claimed they did  -- they certainly traded there, or their
agents in Britain &al did).
 
> "crime" of the Irish is that they never got the chance to be dominant.
> Honestly, if they were given that chance, I'd bet we could read about a long
> and bloody history of the Irish persecuting the English and whomever else was
 
Ireland did have an imperialist period, of sorts.  Before 800 AD or
thereabouts Irish missionaries were everywhere in NW Europe, founding
monasteries & so forth -- and I have been amused to learn while
studying Old Irish that the "standard" Old Irish our books are
normalized to, are based on the Irish used in Bobbio, a monastery in
Italy.  Even after the Vikings changed the picture Irish monks were
still present in Europe.  An earlier phase of this cultural
expansiveness was the contention between the Ionan "Celtic" church --
Colmchille's &al, dominated by O Neill abbots -- and the Roman church
for religious leadership in the English domains.  (Which leadership
would have brought with it considerable political influence over the
local kings.)  This battle the Irish lost.  On the whole, this is
about the mildest form of imperialism you can imagine, at least in the
amount of blood shed.
 
In the 5th & 6th century, & earlier, there a phase of more
conventional imperialism began as Irish settlers or at least Irish nobility
invaded areas in Scotland, NW England, Wales, & Cornwall.  As we all
know the Irish effort to dominate Scotland was successful, at least
for a few centuries, & the way this was carried out & the nature of
the early Scottish kingdom has a sort of imperial flavor, don't
you think?  I don't know that this was a terribly bloody
conflict, since Scottish history required, at least on paper, the
Pictish & Dal Riada royal families to merge, but there are battles
recorded & the Romans didn't confuse the Scotti with pacifists.
 
If you consider the Viking kingdom of Dublin "Irish", then this was an
imperialist phase too, since during this period these Irish were
involved in various Viking adventures, mostly contention over the control of
parts of England.

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main CELTIC-L Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager