Talk:Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I thought the welsh flags next to the names of some of the commanders of the norman invasion of ireland should be changed to english ones, due to the fact that they are very misleading. I'm sure that strongbow, Raymond Carew, & Richard Fitz Godbert all thought of themselves as Normans, & therefore an english flag next to their names would be much more appropriate. However in the case of Rhys ap Gruffydd(a welsh prince) or Maurice Fitz Gerald & Robert Fitz Stephen(the sons of a welsh princess), the welsh flags remain valid. User:Fennessy

Strongbow's wikipage refers to him as a Cambro-Norman Aatomic1 15:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cambro-Norman, sure, but not welsh by any stretch of the imagination, or by the 12th century definition. Using Strongbow as an example, he would have been considered a Norman(English) overlord in his role as Earl of Pembroke, not a native welshman. Also he certainly would have been representing Norman(again, read English) intrests in Ireland not Welsh ones. Not being contentious here just trying to keep the article as factually accurate as possible.User:Fennessy 04:13, 25 May 2007

No probs Aatomic1 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems! First, where is your evidence that Norman=English? That is your assumption. While you are spot-on regarding the Normans being viewed as outsiders in Wales, your implication is that they were not so viewed in England. They were the infamous 'imperialist yoke' to the English at the time of the Norman invasion of Ireland. They spoke French, they used French law and the King of England was first and foremost the Duke of Normandy. England was a conquest, and the term 'Anglo-Norman' wasn't even used to describe them until the fourteenth century. Which makes all talk of an "Anglo-Norman" invasion of Ireland in 1169 even more ridiculous. 194.125.72.144 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry II, Leinster and the Hiberno-Normans

Both Waterford and Dublin were proclaimed Royal Cities

Proclaimed by whom? Was there a military conflict between Henry's forces and that of the previous invaders?

Henry was happily acknowledged by most of the Irish Kings, who saw in him a chance to curb the expansion of both Leinster and the Hiberno-Normans.

So the Hiberno-Normans, Leinster and Henry were three independent political forces? Each controlled a different territory? Why the kings thought Henry would curb the expansion?

However, with both Diarmuid and Strongbow dead, Henry back in England and Ruaidhrí unable to curb his nominal vassals...

Which vassals?

John de Courcy invaded and gained much of east Ulster in 1177, Raymond le Gros had already captured Limerick and much of north Munster, while the other Norman families such as Prendergast, fitz Stephen, fitz Gerald, fitz Henry and le Poer were actively carving out virtual kingdoms for themselves.

So these kingdoms weren't subject to the English crown?

Top.Squark (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists in infobox

That infobox with lists of every tuath (someone could remember) as well as every list of Kings Wikipedia at that point was hosting look - sorry to say - more ridiculous than informative. Interesting also how Leinster fought on both sides. Apart from looking ridiculously, the list of commanders is also plain wrong: there are hundreds (or rather thousands) of kings on those linked list that never were "Commanders" in this period(simply because they were dead). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely ridiculous. The infobox and the article are a disaster. I also don't like the map. So we can put the infobox here and work on it, then put it back when respectable. DinDraithou (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from this page as well, it's here if anyone wants it for reference. I say remove it all together, and replace it with a more suitable map or a differrent illustration, The map is (supposed to be) from 1300, and thus not relevant for this article. The list of parties involved on the Irish side is extremely inaccurate, it is not a list over which tuatha /fifths that actually mustered soldiers in support of Rory o'Connor 1169-1175 (or at least this isn't sourced in any way). The list of Commanders is just plain useless on the Irish side, and on the Norman/Cambro/Anglo side most of the article is dedicated to listing names of Norman knights anyway. There is no source given for the number of troops, 10.000 vs 12.000 + 30 ships(fascinating that the Irish side was the only one with ships, did the Normans invade by flying?!?) - an infobox is a place to summarise/organise relevant information - not a place to introduce unsourced claims not referred in the text. In short, this article is far better of without the infobox, and I don't think much can be salvaged from it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas on the language of this page

As most readers are probably aware the Normans arrived on the South Coast of England in 1066 in the form of an invasion with the Anglo-Saxon king Harold opposing William the conqueror on the Norman side, also, as we may know, the invasion battle is depicted in the famous Bayeux tapestry. Furthermore, it is known that Hitler, when considering invading Britain, visited the tapestry as it is a visual depiction of the last time Britain was invaded. In contrast, the title of this article is 'Norman invasion of Ireland', the writer then goes on to state that the Normans came over 'at the request of Diarmiad '...the King of Leinster. If they came over at the request of the king of Leinster, then how is this an invasion? I'm not entirely sure I follow this logic. By definition invaders are not invited. In fact, Diarmaid sought out the English king in order to petition him for help, in order to take the Hiberno-Norse settlement (Dyflinn) which would later become Modern Dublin. Diarmaids help came in the form of Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare(Strongbow)who was given incentives such as land and Diarmaids daughters hand in marriage if he would help. Therefore it can be argued the matter was more of a contractual arrangement between two parties rather than an invasion. A more appropriate title for this article may therefore be the one already mentioned - Ireland under the Normans.

I would just like to add another couple of points. When England was invaded by the Normans this did not make everyone Norman any more than their arrival in Ireland made everyone Norman. Normans were the ruling class who spoke Norman-French (which was the official language), moved the capital, imposed their legal system on citizens, and built castles to administrate and rule from, many of which still exist today. The Normans only went to Ireland approximately 100yrs after they invaded England and when they did so, they did not represent the English, they represented the Normans. Alanalan001 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongbow attacking "Offaly"

"Strongbow also invaded and plundered Offaly, but failed to subdue it.[45]" - this was Offelan, which was a part of what is now County Kildare, not County Laois.78.18.225.75 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This - Offaly East - anyone disagree?78.18.225.75 (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Offaly East barony is in west Kildare, but Offelan relates to an ancient name for parts of north and east Kildare, deriving from the local Ui Fáelán chiefs, as in the name of Fáelán mac Murchado. Part of the Leinster /Laigin dynasty.78.16.49.194 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Strongbow sanctioned by Pope Adrian?

In the lede:

• "Diarmait and the Normans seized Leinster within weeks and launched raids into neighbouring kingdoms. This military intervention had the backing of King Henry II of England and was sanctioned by Pope Adrian IV."

Pope Adrian had died years before Strongbow's invasion, so I am lifting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.33.95 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is correct but better wording would help clear up that Adrian IV had give sanction long before action was taken. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Gallóglaigh

The importation of galloglas into Ireland was a major factor in containing the Cambro-Norman invasion of the 12th century...

However, according to the Gallowglass article

The first record of gallowglass service under the Irish was in 1259

so they only appeared in the 13th century. Top.Squark (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The galloglass weren't in Ireland at the time of the Norman invasion of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.208.89 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe some source may have been confused with another form of Irish heavy infantry that was active at the time, similar to Gallowglasses, before the introduction of the latter to Ireland. The Gallowglasses were used as an effective warrior against Norman expansion later on, in the 13th and 14th centuries. But yes you are correct, Gallowglasses were not present during the initial Norman invasion. Iamdmonah (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes not present as far as we are aware. Not all gallowglasses were used against the Normans, they typically were used against other Irish too. Some such as the McQuillans profited well from their links with the Normans getting possession of the Route from the de Mandeville's. But that is for another place. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, many Norman lords raised they're own private armies made up largely of Gallóglaigh, although probably not to the same extent as the native Irish, as Gallowglasses were probably replaced by Knights among the Norman ranks, as their unit of heavy infantry. Iamdmonah (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

State of this article

This article has become an absolute mess of selective sourcing and editing promoting a highly biased and POV narrative. Do half the sources even back up what they were original cited for? Asarlaí must take his fair share of the blame for this as most of it was via his expansion. Indeed this version of the article prior to his mass editing of it was more neutral in tone, though obviously needing more source. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sandboxing a rewrite of this article to restore it some to some sort of credibility whilst greatly expanding it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could list each part of the article you have an issue with and why, so that we can discuss and deal with them here. I would prefer specific examples rather than sweeping statements.
Talking and working together is better than single-handedly re-writing a whole article that another editor put a lot of work into.
You're also free to add anything you feel is missing, as long as it's well-sourced. I'd been meaning to add more on the cultural and economic impact myself, so I'd welcome that. ~Asarlaí 13:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't copy my own hard work nearly verbatim and claiming it as your own. Sort of puts your whole talking and working together statement out the window.

Well sourced? You will find no issues with my sourcing Asarlai and you will find it more than even handed. I have not forgotten your issues with sourcing when you went by a different name. striking as it was simply a response to your implication that I don't do edits that are well sourced

Anyways I never said I was going to copy it into the article all at once when finished. I will present it here first on the talk page. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I will add some of the sub-sections I'm working on now into the article as the article either doesn't have them or could do with expansion on it. Scrutiny of my finished (nowhere near it) draft was intended for the whole thing, but I see no need for that when adding parts of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added most of what I have done so far into the article. Most of it covering stuff not in this article but relevant to it. The few things that were already in the article that I also had written about have been merged together so whatever information I missed out on and what was missing in the article are together.

All citations meeting Wikipedia criteria required are added as well though there was never going to be a doubt about that as I wouldn't work otherwise.

You will note I have not added the section on king John to the article yet. The scope appears to be to 1175 which I assume is due to the Treaty of Windsor, though I would argue it is directly related to this article as John's reign, policies and military disasters had the greatest implications to Ireland's future relationship with England and consolidated it. Also many other important parts of the Norman "invasions" came after 1175 such as de Courcy's invasion of Ulster in 1177. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I will point out two of the main issues with this article that makes its neutrality questionable.

1. The description of these events as an "invasion" has long been contested and disputed, with even F.X. Martin calling it nationalist myth. There is no mention anywhere of the problems with this description and how this differs to how it actually started.
2. The infobox helps reinforce the above falsehood and paints the whole thing as simply Norman (+MacMurrough) versus Irish when that is anything but the truth and involves a hell of lot more grey areas. Indeed the infobox should go as it adds nothing to the article but disputation.

Mabuska ^(talk) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman

I noticed that throughout the body text the term "Anglo-Norman invasion" is being used. So why isn't the article itself named "Anglo-Norman invasion"? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good question- The line between what constituted an "Anglo-Norman" and just a plain old Norman was pretty blurred by the 12th century. I'm no expert on this era but from what I can gather England during the 11th and 12th century was firmly Norman-orientated more than anything - all of the 12th century monarchs were either born on the continent or spent most of their lives their (Richard II for example was born in England, but probably spoke middle-English as a second language if that!). I would say keep Anglo-Norman owing to how many nobles and common men who took part in the invasion were born in England to various ancestries, but keep the article title as it is owing to how the invasion was instigated by firmly Norman rulers. If that makes sense!--All The Whiskey In Ireland (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Also, maybe the article shouldn't be called "Anglo-Norman invasion" because there wasn't an Anglo-Norman invasion. There was an invasion of Dyflinn carried out by the combined forces of Diarmiad king of Leinster and Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare, but not a sole Anglo Norman Invasion. If we really just want to use the word 'invasion' maybe we should call the article the Norman invasion of Ireland from their English and welsh colonies? Because that's what they were to the Normans- colonies. Other things to consider are the fact that de Clare's estate was in Wales, he held a title of Welsh nobility, and Welsh archers formed a substantial part of his mercenary force so should we be calling this article Cambro-Norman? Alanalan001 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Henry II and his followers would have been annoyed to be seen as "English". They spoke French and we still use remnants of Law French. "King of England" happened to be Henry's grandest title. To them, the English were a subject people. That changed from about 1350.78.16.94.154 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Whom the Normans called the Engleis, because they were all subjects of the Kingdom of England. It was a political not a cultural description.78.18.225.75 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The initial invasion was, I understand, by Cambro-Normans who are described as a subsection of the Anglo-Normans. However, the act of invasion will have been supported by the vassals and fighting men they provided. As the lord leading the invasion was Cambro-Norman is it fair to think that the fighting men were likely taken from Wales? If so should the title be the Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.34.229 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The term Anglo-Norman is misleading.

The term Anglo-Norman may give off the wrong impression, the Normans in England, wales and France at this time were not Anglo-saxons nor had they any affiliation to the Anglo-saxons, they spoke northern French and practiced Norman customs, they never identified as English infact to be called English would have disgusted king henry II and William the conquer. Many weren't even born in England such as King Henry. When you look up Anglo-Norman it implies a mixing of Norman and Anglo-saxons which was very uncommon during this period. Maybe add something to the article which reflects that reality.

Henry II was descended from Edmund Ironside, so why would he been disgusted to be called English? Dja1979 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Innacurate, incomplete and lacking objectivity. Inadequate sources as well

Hi... in all honesty I think this article is lacking in candor and cites only inadequate secondary sources which treat the matter only in passing. There are better sources for this material, such as "Ireland under the Normans" by Goddard H. Orpen, "History of the Invasion of Ireland by the Anglo-Normans" by Gerald Supple, "History of Ireland" by Thomas Moore and a few others. Even these sources have a strong pro-Norman bias, but offer more information. The article at present doesn't explain any of the dynamics at work in these events, nor does it present anything but an Angevin view of them.

... Oh yeah... I encourage a neutral party to edit this article if not begin it from scratch all over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.144.45 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)