Відео

Bro stop please 🥺 you listen like a german.

Th we Irish now have lost their Catholic faith and are materialists in the Anglo- American style.

British?

Yeah and Htlercwas Austrian- regardless of ethnicity Henry II was King of England and claimed Ireland for the English Crown- a claim perpetuated by every subsequent English and later British Crown right up to relatively recent times- funny that

@@emcc8598 Delusional, England was backwater full of sheep, the Anjevins were French, their courts are in France.

Have to love the invariable whataboutery offered as an excuse for Henry II King of England invading Ireland at the head of what was described by contemporary sources as a large English army in 1171 Regardless of Diarmait MacMurchada's spat with the high King of Ireland, Henry II King of England had been planning the invasion since the 1150s long before Diarmait shows up. One of Henry II’s first royal councils, held at Winchester in September 1155, was called for the specific purpose of organising a conquest of Ireland, over which his brother William would be made king. Henry just happened to get "permission" to invade Ireland from the only English Pope ever - a permission widely believed to have been a forgery or at least based on another heavily altered document The invasion of Ireland by the King of England was nothing about any reasons of religious differences but rather Henry as the King of England laying claim to Ireland. With that claim being perpetuated by every subsequent English and later British monarch right up to relatively recent times Ireland was no more warlike than the numerous kingdoms inhabited by various mixes of Anglo-saxons Danish Welsh and Scottish on the island of Britain with Henry spending the previous two decades fighting his errant barrons. Btw the English views of the Irish were predicated on justifying their invasion in 1171, attempting to make out the Irish were somehow uncivilised at a time when Ireland had a shared culture, language and system of law and renowned for its centres of learning. With the excuses used not much different to those used by other despotic regimes throughout history to justify state orchrastrated invasion and colonisation of their neighbours

@@emcc8598Yes the pope might have been English but by any measure Henry II was French which was why he was buried there along with his wife and most famous son. It's not a question of whataboutry history is extremely complex with many factors affecting the eventual outcome. It's like an international buffet where there is something to feed any prejudice or conclusion depending on your emotional need.

@@freebeerfordworkers History is indeed complex - it remains Henry II was the King of England - the same who in one of his first royal councils, held at Winchester in September 1155 called for the specific purpose of organising a conquest of Ireland. Henry invaded in 1171 and claimed Ireland for the English Crown- a claim perpetuated by every subsequent English and later British monarch right up to relatively recent times. We can of course beat around the bush till the cows come home and imagine that Henry wasnt really the king of England because he wasnt of some mystical pureblooded English race or something...

@@emcc8598 Of course he was king of England but he was never English he was a Frenchman plain and simple. The same went for his son Richard the Lionheart. When the Victorians put up his statue at Westminster it was pointed out he said he would sell England to anyone who would pay for his wars. Not a very English attitude to take

@@freebeerfordworkers And what exactly was "English" in the 12th century? The inhabitants of England were a hodgepodge of the descendants of Angles Saxons Freisans Jutes Danes Britons and yes even Normans - the same whose own descendants would become the English of today. It remains the various ethnicities of the population of the Kingdom of England at that period in history is irrelevant to the fact that Henry as King of England invaded and laid claim to Ireland for the English Crown- a claim perpetuated by every subsequent English and later British monarch

You may want to look at the video's description, there's a list of sources there. I'll take that over some dude in the comments saying he's wrong

He is referring to the period following the war of Independence btw where the Treaty allowed for the creation of a separate state to be known as the Irish Free State *with dominion status* within the then British Empire-a status equivalent to Canada. And again he refers to the Anglo-Norman invasion of *Ireland* not England 0:54

Dude.The English invaded Ireland multiple times. Not sure how relevant the Norman invasion in 1066 was to the English invasions of Ireland nearly a century later. This settled well documented history.

Ah you have to love the fairy stories some British tell themselves 😅

Distinction without a difference

@@emcc8598 No idea where you are from, but presumably you are able to read, so do some research and come back and tell us all about it.

@ginojaco Yeah best go look up something else other than those fairy stories 'cos the "The English didn't" version doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny sunshine

Au contraire - that fairy story gets dragged up by anglos all the time. The "Irish did no such thing btw- there being no nation state of Ireland or Scotland at that time. Not only that but there is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence for any invasion of northern part of the island of Britain by any tribal groups from the island of Ireland

When sea level were lower there were close together inhabited islands, Dogger land from Ireland to Scotland and what latter were two countries was one inhabited area, ancestors of Gaelic people. When sea level rose then the island were under water but the two future countries were close enough to see each other and actively trade with each other.

@@emcc8598 Archeological evidence is inconclusive because it does not exist, not because it has been proven one way or the other. The most complete evidence set is linguistically, and the Argyll area place names are gaelic, not pict or briton. By the way, there are plenty of Irish historians who believe the Fergus the Great legend, of him moving from Antrim to Argyll.

@gmatthews7632 Dynastic stories written down by Christian monks centuries after the events were supposed to have taken place aside - it remains archaeological and historical evidence todate show no evidence of any invasion regardless. And that is backed up by recent genetic research which shows the populations of the region straddling north eastern Ireland and north western Britain have not significantly changed in over 2 millenia. A population which like the rest of these islands originally spoke one of a variety of celtic languages - with the coastal and island region between the two islands likely been gaelic speaking for most of that period. Why would a mere 12 miles of sea between mark a border when there was no nation states and at a time when related tribal groups from both the islands of Ireland and Britain migrated traded and raided between the two regions with tribal groups from the island of Britain migrating to Ireland and vice versa

It's nine miles to Scotland from Ulster.

There's an old translation from the 1860s by Thomas Forester. It suffers from the shortcomings of most old translations in that it sometimes uses outdated terminology or translates concepts based on the historical understandings of the time which don't reflect how a modern translator would translate them. It was also made before the critical Latin edition was published so the text it's based on doesn't necessarily reflect Gerald's own work as closely, but all in all it's not bad and has the advantage of being free. I have a link to it in the description of this video. There's also the John O'Meara translation which is the penguin one you mentioned. It is without a doubt the better translation and I just looked it up on Amazon and it's not expensive. The only downside is that it's based on the first version of the Topographia. Gerald added to the work over the years so this one has half as much content as the older translation. O'Meara believed that the later versions were added to by others and not Gerald (which is a minority position which most disagree with) so he didn't include them. That said, it is the core of Gerald's text, so you're still getting great stuff. If you want you can easily read O'Meara's first and then Forester's for the extra content if you're craving more. Happy reading!

Normans

​@@lervish1966lol it certainly wasn't the Normans kicked out of Ireland in 1922 😅

@@emcc8598 It was the Normans who took over Ireland and England.

@lervish1966 Nope it was Henry II King of England who invaded Ireland in 1171 at the head of what was described in contemporary sources as a large English army who invaded Ireland and claimed the country for the English Crown. A claim perpetuated by every subsequent English and later British monarch right up to relatively recent times

@@emcc8598 Yes, England got dragged into Irish affairs by the Normans. 800 years of entanglement thanks to the imperialistic Normans. So by 1922, of course, the Normans have thoroughly changed the psyche and governance of England. It doesn't change the fact that it was the ruling Normans in the 12th century who were calling the shots, not the Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxon English never had a bad relationship with the Irish. Northumberland and Oswald had a major connection with the Irish and Irish church through St.Aidan. That all changed come the Normans, who did have an aggressive imperialistic drive - they took England after all - Maybe if the Irish hadn't been piratically raiding Britain for centuries the Normans wouldn't have felt the need to invade?

You’re so wrong 😂😂 Scottish we’re heavy in Northern and Western Ireland before the plantation settlements, DNA studies show virtually no Irish in the Western part of Scotland but you find a bunch of Scottish DNA in Western/Northern Ireland.

​​@@BigRed2Partly true - the most recent genetic research shows that related tribal groups inhabited north eastern part of Ulster and the north eastern parts of what would become Scotland from earliest times. These apparently wete the Scotti of Roman accounts who along with the Picts were noted as raiding Roman settlements in parts of Roman Britain. It wasn't until the ninth century that the Picts and scotti would come together under one King Kenneth McAlpin from which time gaelic became the most common language in Alba and then what only then became known as Scotland

Contrary to the usual tripe trotted out - Ireland was indeed a unified nation with a common language culture and system of law from at least the 5th century, with Ireland divided into fifths (Cuaige) and ruled by regional Kings who voted for a nominal High King of Ireland from amongst themselves. Somethings Britain wouldn't experience until at least 1707

Correct

@@BigRed2 True

No they don't. Plenty of argy bargy and land seizure since then. Lots in fact.

Yes 20 years ago I lived in a house and legally should have paid £1 a year rent for the ground it stood on to the family that had owned it for 600 years. They never tried to collect and I never tried to pay - my little stand against Norman oppression.

Saxon *is* English, and the Anglo-Saxons were English (‘Anglish’).

The red book is a collection of fairy stories and Anglo-saxon propaganda written by Christian monks centuries after the stories were supposed to have taken place

"Ireland" did no such thing btw there being no nation state of Ireland, England or Wales in that period. In the 4th century the Romans noted raids on Roman settlements on the island of Britain by four different groups- who were the Britons Saxons Picts and Scotti- the last being a collection of various tribal groups who inhabited both the north eastern coast of the island of Ireland and the the North western coast of Northern Britain. It remains that prior to the arrival of the Romans - the Greek geographer Strabo noted that the Britons were famous for their slave trade abroad with slave raids on Ireland being recorded during this period up to and Including the Anglo-saxon period. It remains that tribal groups on both the island of Britain and the island of Ireland variously raided traded and migrated between the two islands with slavery being a common practice around the world at this time. The inhabitants of the island of Britain were justcas big slavers as everyone else

@@emcc8598 no its true they invaded other places like spain and took people from there

@Gypsygeekfreak17 lol nope no true more brit fairy stories 😅

@Gypsygeekfreak17 Nope "they' didn't - pls do some proper research

I hear that Ireland is subject to a new invasion.

Make sure you say all that to Charlemagne... Meantime you need to read this... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks

@@alexanderSydneyOz I've read that and studied the topic in college. Charlemagne was a Frank, lived in what is now Germany, and was not Gallo-Romance in terms of his culture.