what if in the middle ages the irish and welsh beat back the British

[lawandorder82]

The irish and the welsh beat the British or held them back what would happen?

[O'Hea]

Britain is the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so I think you mean what would have happened if the Welsh and Irish had held back the English. Which itself is kinda vague- are we talking about Romano-Britons holding back the Anglo-Saxons and Britain remaining mostly Celtic? Are we talking about Wales and Ireland resisting Norman conquest and Britain staying partitioned? What role, if any, would Scotland have in all that?

If you want a good lead on this, after establishing Scottish independence the Bruces actually campaigned in Ireland to drive out the English and claim the High Kingship and fought a number of major battles before abandoning the project. If you want a late-medieval spin on this idea a Hiberno-Scottish Union could be an interesting place to start.

[Cyclops]

Britain was an inevitable outcome of efficient government, and the only government effecient and wealthy enough to dominate the islands was based in London. I think if London didn't rule the isles then Paris or Madrid or maybe Arhus would have.

I think the Scots made a fist of independence by importing French ideas but the fuedal system played out to a personal union with England, and at first that looked like a win for the Scots so they went with it.

If the Irish and Welsh imported more sophisticated government ideas in the early middle ages like the Scots did, and somehow worked out a stalemate to keep England from absorbing them all, (say a lasting Irish-Scots alliance with Scots commercial development and Irish manpower?) and foreign powers stayed out (say English seapower held the channel? But somehow didn't choke Scots trade? dunno how that works) then you might see three or four kingdoms in the isles instead of one shattering one.

Britain is the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, ...

Indeed, but if you ask a US citizen what a British accent sound like they will imitate Mr Sheffield from the Nanny, but not Billy Connolly (or Gabriel Byrne or some Welshman, or neven a Yorkshireman, let alone a Geordie). Perhaps thats because politically Britain and especially Great Britain, meaning the whole island or group of islands is the creation of a London clique (abetted by some turncoat Scotsmen).

I've always suspected the London clique was strongly inspired by continental ideas, in the first instance French (obviously bastard Bill and his progeny) but later by heresies and commercial influence from Holland (the most obviosly examples of which is William III, but I suspect a lot of East Anglian gentry like Cromwell had a Dutch connection at least in ideas and Pym was exrtemely Dutch in his puritan commercialism, hatred of Spain and love of piracy) but thats the paranoid Freemason-suspecter in me speaking.

[Hresvelgr]

Wales might plausibly have been able to consolidate itself to a similar degree as Scotland, even as late as the 13th Century shortly before they were conquered. The Kingdom of Gwynedd on multiple occasions formed a sort of hegemony over the rest of Wales, at various points holding other Welsh kingdoms as allies (of lesser power) or even as vassals. Most importantly, Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, while not the first ruler of Gwynedd to achieve this level of power, was actually officially recognized as Prince of Wales by none other than the King of England. He would've been able to form a much more solid base and perhaps even establish a long lasting kingdom ruling over all Wales if the Second Baron's War lasted longer or caused more damage to England. The King and his son Prince Edward could very well have been killed at the Battle of Evesham, which would leave England in a greater mess than if they were killed earlier by a more powerful Baronial faction. If the King and his eldest son die at Evesham, the civil war keeps going and is likely to last a long, long time. In the meantime, Llywelyn would be free to stomp all over the Marcher lords and enforce his rule over them and the other Welsh princes. By the time the anarchy in England pipes down they aren't in any position to crush the Principality of Wales in the same manner to which they are accustomed.

[Cyclops]

Thats an interesting scenario H. Its telling that the Principality of Wales is at least confirmed by the English king, likewise the Kingdom of Scotland (although it evolved seperately to England) becomes something the English king arbitrates. Ard Ris rise and falls like the tide. The Celtic Fringe polities (like the Anglo-Saxon states) have a fragile structure which barely survives the rulers death.

Feudalism brought stability of a kind unkown in the British isles since the Romans left.

Returning to the OP's question "what if in the middle ages the irish and welsh beat back the British" in fact the English pursuinhg domination of Britain were often beaten back by the Irish and Welsh and it didn't matter. English overlordship persisted even in defeat where the "native" overlordships did not, and English overlordship was often sought out by Irish, Scots and Welsh.

[Hresvelgr]

The problem the Welsh had for most of their history with England was that not only were they a patchwork of multiple small kingdoms, but the laws of inheritance were different from other places in that all sons of the king would inherit an equal share of land, which of course led to fractious politics and such. Llywelyn the Great recognized this flaw and tried to amend it by making the heir to his kingdom his second son, Dafydd, whose mother was the daughter of King John of England. Of course his eldest Gruffydd caused trouble after Llywelyn's death by siding with England (though he gained nothing from the deal and died trying to escape English captivity, some way to treat allies) but one of Gruffydd's sons, Llywelyn, followed in his grandfather's footsteps and envisioned a more unified Wales. He likewise made a politically significant marriage in wedding Simon de Montfort's daughter, Simon being the leader of the Baronial revolt.

Now the argument of Wales and the other "Celtic fringe" kingdoms not having anything resembling overlordship in their relationships with England does have merit. Wales is but a small and sparsely populated land, as was Ireland and Scotland to a lesser degree. But owing to more internal cohesion, reforms of the state, and the natural geography, the Principality of Wales could plausibly maintain a much greater form of independence and sovereignty than in our history. There would still be a Prince of Wales, but perhaps never one of English birth. It would also mean much greater preservation of the Welsh language among other things.

[lawandorder82]

So brian o conner could not have rallied the irish to beat Britain and have them leave the islands alone.

[Cyclops]

... It would also mean much greater preservation of the Welsh language among other things.

It'd be interesting to speculate what a more established Wales might bring to Britain, united or not. I'd note independent Ireland today still contributes to the anglosphere culturally and lots of Irish work in England, so even independently they are bound to/contribute to "Britain".

Scotland did make a fist of a seperate political and cultural identity, and once they (more or less voluntarily) joined with England they contributed greatly to the growing empire through strong educational institutions and leading figures in politics, culture and science as well as a steady quota of imperial administrators.

In one way the English experience of Empire begins in Ireland, and was the nursery of their American and Indian expansions. Without a subordinate Ireland to administer would they have less colonial success?

So brian o conner could not have rallied the irish to beat Britain and have them leave the islands alone.

Yes quite possible, but then his son would be betrayed or some other idiot would invite the English straight back in. The English were invited into Ireland pretty much every step of the way, they didn't just invade like the Vikings.

[Hresvelgr]

The first thing that comes to mind is that King Arthur might retain more elements of his Welsh roots in popular culture whereas our popular conception of him is largely rooted in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, an Anglo-French work. Granted, the tale of Arthur was popular enough that not only was he popular enough among the English (ironic as that may be) but also among continental Europeans, but if Welsh culture is allowed to thrive there might be more influential authors and updated works from there that go into broad circulation.

As far as the Irish, I think a neglected figure that could've made a difference for Irish independence was Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

The Norman's by Henry the 1st was more french then they were English which later on help's the Irish push out Edward the 3rd with the push of the Statutes of Kilkenny which was meant to stop Norman's and Gaelic mixing in 1366 AD the Norman's living in Ireland never learned to speak English rather France or Irish. so to answer your question Britain if you really mean England never really took over Ireland, the move to take Ireland don't really kick in till the renaissance, and even then not really successful till the battle of the boyne in 1690. as you can see there England hold's very little by 1450.

Britain is the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so I think you mean what would have happened if the Welsh and Irish had held back the English. Which itself is kinda vague- are we talking about Romano-Britons holding back the Anglo-Saxons and Britain remaining mostly Celtic? Are we talking about Wales and Ireland resisting Norman conquest and Britain staying partitioned? What role, if any, would Scotland have in all that?

That's funny am sure the Normans lived in the south of Scotland and Robert the bruce was Norman himself. and also Ireland was making big money in slaving many Anglo-Saxons.

If you want a good lead on this, after establishing Scottish independence the Bruces actually campaigned in Ireland to drive out the English and claim the High Kingship and fought a number of major battles before abandoning the project. If you want a late-medieval spin on this idea a Hiberno-Scottish Union could be an interesting place to start.

you mean that Scottish guy that rocked up in 1315 tryed to make himself high king and killed lot's of Irish when we didn't have food for him.
I would be more picky but I have to get back to work.

[IrishBlood]

There were many 'what if' moments in Irish History in the Medieval period where a particularly strong High King did his best to drive out the english, but there was always a combination of factors that caused them to fail, usually; unreliable allies, outright betrayal by supposed allies, lack of experience handling large armies in open battles and downright awful luck.

Throughout the medieval period the Gealic Irish spent far more time fighting against each other than against the Normans or even the english. People often consider the death of Brian Boru at the battle of Clontarf to be one of the great irish tragedy's. Boru had kicked th ecrap out of the vikings as well as any other Gealic lords that opposed him and basically had the entire Islandmore or less under his control.

The battle of Clontarf was between his forces and a coalition of vikings and the king of Leinster who was his strongest opponent, their defeat would have meant a unified Irish kingdom and from what I can remember Boru was doing his utmost to install a more centralized Kingship that was common on the continent.

Boru won the battle, but died in its aftermath. That is not a big deal really, considering he was a very old man (by medieval standards) by that stage and wouldnt have remained king for too much longer, the problem was that his eldest sons who were both renowned warriors and leaders also died in battle. Only Boru's youngest son survived, but he had neither the political clout of military skill to reap the benefits of the battle and Borus 'empire' fell apart.

Now if Boru's eldest son survived and continued the centralizing process while crushing opponents to his rule then Irish history could have been very different. Chances are the normans would not have been invited in and if they were they would have faced a much more unified enemy.

The possibilities are endless really......and rather depressing......

[PhilipO'Hayda]

Irish should have won for kingdom of ireland.

it should really be called the Lordship of Ireland after Pope Adrian IV the only every English pope look's at Ireland as part of England,giving apparently gave Henry II of England papal approval for the conquest of Ireland. In 1155 or 1156 an old friend of the Pope’s, named John of Salisbury, who was secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald of Bec, arrived in Rome on a mission for his master. Canterbury had lost its former jurisdiction over Irish bishops and it was in Canterbury’s interest to depict the Irish as savages in need of a firm, correcting hand. ‘In response to my petition,’ John later reported, ‘the Pope granted and donated Ireland to the illustrious king of England, Henry, to be held by him and his successors’ and ‘sent the king a gold ring, set with a magnificent emerald, as a sign that he had invested the king with the right to rule Ireland.’ Henry’s conquest of Ireland had to wait until the 1170s, but the story was repeated in the following decade by Gerald of Wales, who provided the flowery text of the papal bull in hisExpugnatio Hibernica (‘The Conquest of Ireland’). ‘Laudably and profitably does your magnificence contemplate extending your glorious name on earth,’ it began, and went on to commend Henry’s intention ‘to enlarge the boundaries of the Church’ and ‘to expound the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous peoples’. The Pope was pleased to agree that ‘you may enter that island and perform therein the things that have regard to the honour of God and the salvation of that land...’Whether the document was genuine or a forgery has been hotly disputed, but most authorities tend to accept that Rome issued it or something like it. Adrian meanwhile had died at Anagni, near Rome, in 1159.

The lordship of Ireland was created as a Papal possession following the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169–71 and would have no king and be under English rule.. or it was meet to be, most of the power want to the Lord of Ireland, who was king all but by name, Ireland would not be called the Kingdom of Ireland till 1542 with King Henry the 8th making himslef king of Ireland, before the pope could make his own King of Ireland, but Henry had no real land in Ireland.

The possibilities are endless really......and rather depressing......

unless you read up on the Statutes of Kilkenny and how Edward the 3rd army failed to take Ireland. over all Ireland does hold out much longer then the rest before becoming apart of the UK

[IrishBlood]

it should really be called the Lordship of Ireland after Pope Adrian IV the only every English pope look's at Ireland as part of England,giving apparently gave Henry II of England papal approval for the conquest of Ireland. In 1155 or 1156 an old friend of the Pope’s, named John of Salisbury, who was secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald of Bec, arrived in Rome on a mission for his master. Canterbury had lost its former jurisdiction over Irish bishops and it was in Canterbury’s interest to depict the Irish as savages in need of a firm, correcting hand. ‘In response to my petition,’ John later reported, ‘the Pope granted and donated Ireland to the illustrious king of England, Henry, to be held by him and his successors’ and ‘sent the king a gold ring, set with a magnificent emerald, as a sign that he had invested the king with the right to rule Ireland.’ Henry’s conquest of Ireland had to wait until the 1170s, but the story was repeated in the following decade by Gerald of Wales, who provided the flowery text of the papal bull in hisExpugnatio Hibernica (‘The Conquest of Ireland’). ‘Laudably and profitably does your magnificence contemplate extending your glorious name on earth,’ it began, and went on to commend Henry’s intention ‘to enlarge the boundaries of the Church’ and ‘to expound the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous peoples’. The Pope was pleased to agree that ‘you may enter that island and perform therein the things that have regard to the honour of God and the salvation of that land...’Whether the document was genuine or a forgery has been hotly disputed, but most authorities tend to accept that Rome issued it or something like it. Adrian meanwhile had died at Anagni, near Rome, in 1159.

The lordship of Ireland was created as a Papal possession following the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169–71 and would have no king and be under English rule.. or it was meet to be, most of the power want to the Lord of Ireland, who was king all but by name, Ireland would not be called the Kingdom of Ireland till 1542 with King Henry the 8th making himslef king of Ireland, before the pope could make his own King of Ireland, but Henry had no real land in Ireland.

unless you read up on the Statutes of Kilkenny and how Edward the 3rd army failed to take Ireland. over all Ireland does hold out much longer then the rest before becoming apart of the UK

Dont get me started on the that, or the 9 years war....or that god damn ing battle of Aughrim!

[Aymer de Valence]

Kingdom of England, not 'British'......

[Rogal Dorn 229]

Although, even then, England was nowhere near a unified kingdom until 1300 and even then. Up until that point the North of England had been left to rule itself and still remained quite strongly independent.
Wales and Ireland could have held off the English but they couldn't have done so indeffinately. Wales was doomed by its geography to be on the receiving end of England's kings ambitions, much like Scotland, and Ireland was doomed by remaining Catholic when the rest of the British isles converted to protestantism.

[Condottiere 40K]

Strategically speaking, England had to secure Ireland, if it couldn't assimilate the Irish. Wales seems more the result initially of ambitious Norman barons looking to expand.

[Roma_Victrix]

British?

"...beat back the British the English."

There, I fixed it for you. Technically the Welsh are British. They along with the English, Scots, and Cornish people belong on the isle of Great Britain. Historically you could even say that the Danes who established the Danelaw in Anglo-Saxon-era Britain were proper Britons too. So, technically speaking, saying that the Welsh beat back the "British" means that they were beating themselves.

[Torvus]

To me, this question is more interesting (though the possibilities obviously become more vague) when considered from the point of view of the Romano-Britons fighting off the Anglo-Saxons, or even just containing them in Kent. I'm aware that's stretching the timeframe a bit, but "middle ages" is pretty vague to begin with. With their stronger martial tradition, I'd argue that a more Romano-Celtic Britain would be better equipped to fight the Danes during the Viking age.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

Well over all by the end of The Medieval period Ireland was mostly interdependent, this is mostly down to both the Scottish war of Independence and the Normans becoming more Irish then the Irish them self's. Most people mix up are history with made up facts and think because we had no over all king we most not be interdependent. Really the King of England only had power in Dublin calling this part of Ireland the Pale and leaving the rest to the Irish which was made up of Gaelic chieftains and Norman Earls.
England or the British at the time only finally take over Ireland with the Williamite War and that's not in the Medieval age since it's 1689-91. So looking at the opening comment and others, you all need to read up on Irish History.

[IrishBlood]

Well over all by the end of The Medieval period Ireland was mostly interdependent, this is mostly down to both the Scottish war of Independence and the Normans becoming more Irish then the Irish them self's. Most people mix up are history with made up facts and think because we had no over all king we most not be interdependent. Really the King of England only had power in Dublin calling this part of Ireland the Pale and leaving the rest to the Irish which was made up of Gaelic chieftains and Norman Earls.
England or the British at the time only finally take over Ireland with the Williamite War and that's not in the Medieval age since it's 1689-91. So looking at the opening comment and others, you all need to read up on Irish History.

Agreed, the primary reason Ireland was not able to achieve meaningful sovereignty was because there were too many Irish kingdoms and chiefdoms far more concerned with fighting against each other than uniting under a particularly powerful overlord against the Normans/English. This only happened on a number of occasions and each time the English realized the danger and cracked down hard, but never went the extra mile required to fully occupy the island as it would have been too massive an undertaking for so little comparative reward.

In my opinion the English took over Ireland after the nine years war in 1603 because after that virtually all the Gaelic nobles pledged fealty to the English Crown and no longer had the ability to resist. Combine that with the flight of the Earls and the 9 years war was basically game over for independent (although divided) Ireland.

The Irish Confederate wars was arguably the last hurrah for Gaelic nobility trying to overthrow English rule, but that was a rebellion, implying that the English had already taken over Ireland for all intents and purposes. The English civil war allowed for the Rebellion to gain traction and get seriously dragged out, but unlike the the nine years war or the Williamite wara the Irish rebels didn't receive any seriously significant foreign support, so the rebellion was doomed from the beginning.

As for the Williamite war, the Irish catholics were fighting for an English king, so this was no longer a war to preserve Irish sovereignty, rather it was an English sectarian/secessionist conflict that everyone in Ireland had to pick a side on. SO to reiterate, for all intents and purposes the English had effectively conquered Ireland by 1603, everything that happened afterwards was a rebellion against their tightening control.