Why were the English historically so mean to the Irish?

Home Forums History Why were the English historically so mean to the Irish?

Viewing 72 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #86976
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why were the English so mean to the Irish? Seems like a lot of effort considering a more friendly relationship could only be an asset to both of them

    • #86977
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Catholicism and protestantism mostly.

    • #86978
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why are (people) so mean to (other people)
      Good question

      • #86981
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Protestants aren’t people.

        • #87006
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Catholicism is heresy

      • #87238
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Protestants aren’t people.

        Papists aren’t people

    • #86979
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s normal to discipline a child

    • #86980
      Anonymous
      Guest

      England is a seafaring nation and the British Empire was a maritime empire. An Atlantic maritime empire with another nation on its western flank is not viable unless the other nation is subdued, conciliated or eliminated. If Ireland had been in a position to blockade Britain from Atlantic shipping routes it would have been the end of the British empire, which is why it was imperative to British statesmen to prevent Ireland from being able to function as a nation. British policy regarded Ireland as something to be subdued and utterly subordinated to British interests so as not to develop the capacity to assert its own interests against Britain, because its capacity to do that would mean the end of Britain as a power, or result in an invasion of Britain in conjunction with a continental nation. The extreme, basically genocidal measures Britain repeatedly took in Ireland came out of a belief that it was safer to neutralise Ireland by eliminating vast swathes of its population than to conciliate it and thereby potentially let it develop the ability to assert itself against Britain.

      • #87014
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The American revolution aggravated these fears greatly by vindicating the belief that colonial nations would turn on Britain as soon as a discrepancy between their respective interests arose. Following in the wake of the French and American Revolutions came the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland, in which sections of the Ulster Scots-Irish and Anglican Anglo-Irish (both of whom were close in race and mindset to the American colonists, being descended from British settlers) united with the Catholic Gaelic Irish against British rule. The Rebellion received material support from the French and moral support from the American Revolutionaries. The French support terrified the British on account of the fact that it had been a material factor in the success of the American Revolution. The anti-sectarian nationalist ideology of the men of 1798 likewise terrified the British on account of the fact that it represented Ireland functioning as a national unit in contradiction of British aims. After the rebellion was put down, Ireland was run more rigorously than a recently conquered country for almost a century. An extraordinary military saturation far exceeding what was used to hold India in conjunction with a larger number of police per capita than Prussia at its most authoritarian was supplemented by paramilitary loyalist militias and secret societies animated by an outstandingly sectarian and bloodthirsty ethos. State force was used to buttress a hellishly unjust landholding system which gave the landlord power of life and death more or less over the tenant. The extreme oppression of the people, the response to the Great Famine, and the government-sponsored ejectment policy of the latter half of the century which massively reduced the Irish population to the point of it still being lower than before the Famine can’t be understood without realising that the British never felt their own position was secure unless the Irish were securely under their own boot.

        • #87035
          Anonymous
          Guest

          sounds like you tried to ally with britains greatest threat and you got what you deserved.

      • #87022
        Anonymous
        Guest

        except it wouldn’t because Ireland is a very resource-poor island with none of England’s coal and iron, no matter what happened it would remain a backward, agrarian country.

      • #87378
        Anonymous
        Guest

        All of this makes very little sense.
        Seeing as British hostility towards Ireland predated the British empire.

    • #86982
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ireland was far away from England relative to Wales and Scotland, which meant that from an English perspective it would inevitably acquire a reputation for "rebelliousness" and "treachery" simply because in the first few centuries after the 1200s, England wasn’t yet able to successfully exercise full control over it. Again, largely due to simple geographical distance, English settlers sent to Ireland inevitably ended up compromised by their perceived need to get along with the Irish, undermining their usefulness as ostensible agents of their own ruler and nation. Time and time again, through sheer entropy, Ireland defeated English attempts to rule it. Until the 1640s, but that’s another story.

      Perhaps it’s important not to overestimate the sectarian aspect in English anti-Irishness (or to be fair, the reverse, either). English attitudes towards the Welsh were historically just as hostile, until Wales was completely subdued, despite them being decidedly not Catholic. It’s also important to always keep in mind that in the 1600s (the very time during which Ireland was most thoroughly stricken by vicious war), the Irish weren’t fighting the English government alone: they were in an alliance with other Jacobites across both Ireland and Britain, and in fact had the Jacobites won this struggle Irish history would have been very different and the conflict between Irish and English would appear much less bitter and intractable in retrospect. History’s turning points don’t just shape the future, they also shape how we view earlier history.

      • #87012
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Not a terrible post (speaking as Jacobite nationalist myself) but it’s important to remember that the Irish were only Jacobite in the last of their three seventeenth-century wars because James II was only king for that time. I think you mean ‘pro-Stuart’ for Jacobite. In the first war of the 17th century, the Nine Years’ War, they were fighting a "faith and fatherland" war whose ideological underpinnings were left strategically vague so as to conciliate competing factions. In the Confederate War, they were fighting for the crown, at least nominally, but one of the faultlines of division was the extent of attachment to the Stuart monarchy. The Old English were enthusiastically royalist but the Old Irish were more ambivalent and pragmatic in their devotion to the king, and more inclined to value papal over royal authority. Since Charles I was king at this time I suppose you could call them ‘Carolinite’ but royalist is more conventional and convenient. The tensions between the Old Irish and Old English were only finally obliviated in the Jacobite War at the end of the century.

      • #87016
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I don’t think it’s through sheer entropy I think it was through resistance

    • #86998
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The British Empire is founded not upon the British Bible or the British dreadnought but upon Ireland. The empire that began upon an island, ravaged, sacked and plundered shall end on an island, "which whether it proceed from the very genius of the soil, or the influence of the stars, or that Almighty God hath not yet appointed the time of her reformation, or that He reserveth her in this unquiet state still for some secret scourge which shall by her come unto England, it is hard to be known but yet much to be feared." […] The Empire founded on Ireland by Henry and Elizabeth Tudor has expanded into mighty things. England deprived of Ireland resumes her natural proportions, those of a powerful kingdom. Still possessing Ireland she is always an empire. For just as Great Britain bars the gateways of northern and west central Europe, to hold up at will the trade and block the ports of every coast from the Baltic to the Bay of Biscay, so Ireland stands between Britain and the greater seas of the west and blocks for her the highways of the ocean. An Ireland strong, independent and self-contained, a member of the European family of nations, restored to her kindred, would be the surest guarantee for the healthy development of European interests in those regions whence they are to-day excluded by the anti-European policy of England. The relation of Ireland to Great Britain has been in no wise understood on the continent. The policy of England has been for centuries to conceal the true source of her supplies and to prevent an audit of transactions with the remoter island. As long ago as the reign of Elizabeth Tudor this shutting off of Ireland from contact with Europe was a settled point of English policy. The three "German Earls" with letters from the Queen who visited Dublin in 1572 were prevented by the Lord Deputy from seeing for themselves anything beyond the walls of the city.

    • #87010
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The british are cruel by nature and suffer from a massive superiority complex. They have been cruel to every other nation they invaded, the irish unfortunatley are too close to the british.

    • #87018
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m Irish myself, but just shut up. We don’t care anymore.

      • #87020
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Sir this is a history board

        • #87030
          Anonymous
          Guest

          By all means fire away. Discuss the past.

    • #87032
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Cause celts are born to be slaves of better races

    • #87051
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Basically England saw itself as Romulus and Ireland as Remus: one sis needed to be crushed for the other to rise.

    • #87060
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >he said in English

      • #87087
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >Slimy Limey obstinately repeats the same line out of shame and self-realization
        Bonjour, serviteurs Anglais, regardez, je suis construit en pierre.

        t. EDOUARD Plantagenet

    • #87090
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >So long ago as 1613 we find a candid admission in the State papers that the Irish were the better men in the field. "The next rebellion whenever it shall happen, doth threaten more danger to the State than any heretofore, when the cities and walled towns were always faithful; (1) because they have the same bodies they ever had and therein they had and have advantage of us; (2) from infancy they have been and are exercised in the use of arms; (3) the realm by reason of the long peace was never so full of youths; (4) that they are better soldiers than heretofore, their continental employment in wars abroad assures us, and they do conceive that their men are better than ours."
      >This testimony to Irish superiority, coming as it does from English official sources just three hundred years ago, would be convincing enough did it stand alone. But it is again and again reaffirmed by English commanders themselves as the reason for their failure in some particular enterprise. In all else they were superior to the Irish; in arms, armaments, munitions, supplies of food and money, here the long purse, settled organization and greater commerce of England, gave her an overwhelming advantage. Moreover the English lacked the moral restraints that imposed so severe a handicap on the Irish in their resistance. They owned no scruple of conscience in committing any crime that served their purpose. Beaten often in open fight by the hardier bodies, stouter arms and greater courage of the Irishmen, they nevertheless won the game by recourse to means that no Irishman, save he who had joined them for purposes of revenge or in pursuit of selfish personal aims, could possibly have adopted. The fight from the first was an unequal one. Irish valour, chivalry, and personal strength were matched against wealth, treachery and cunning. The Irish better bodies were overcome by the worse hearts. As Curran put it in 1817—"The triumph of England over Ireland is the triumph of guilt over innocence."

    • #87098
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Edward is an English given name. It is derived from Old English words ead, meaning ‘wealth’, ‘fortune’ or ‘prosperous’ and wear, meaning ‘guardian’ or ‘protector’
      ?

      • #87124
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >Limeys inventing fake etymologies because they’re ashamed of admitting that "Edward" is just the English iteration of his native, FRENCH name, Edouard
        Dreadfully pitiful, although inherently English.

        Allez mes braves Anglais, mourez pour que je puisse acquérir plus de territoire.

        t. French king no. 23

        • #87129
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >he said in English

          • #87154
            Svetovid
            Guest

            >French is English to the defiled, tortured Limey
            What a shitshow nationality.

            Esclaves anglais, observez, j’ai une armure de nègre.

            t. French King no.44

            • #87159
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >he said in English

              • #87182
                Svetovid
                Guest

                >Slimy Limey is so used to humiliation and rape that he just wades through all of it by antonomasia

                • #87198
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Svetovid running a train on the English
                  You’re an honorary curadh, friend.

                  >they said in English

                  • #87200
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    dies Englishly*, come again, please.

              • #87197
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Svetovid running a train on the English
                You’re an honorary curadh, friend.

        • #87342
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I am happy to let you insist upon this and have you also take all the blame for Scottish and Irish problems from then on.

          The final redpill is embracing that it isn’t the Anglos that has a problem with the celts but the Norman and French yoke aristocracy. Once again everything is France’s fault.

          • #87349
            Anonymous
            Guest

            This. The Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English commoners are siss in blood. It’s a shame Continental nobility freaking ruined everything again.

    • #87199
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/4QSF9FM.gif

      >Be humans
      >Maybe we should just peacefully coexist with one another and not kill each other over minor differences like savages
      >Nah

    • #87201
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >he still can’t stop himself from speaking English

    • #87205
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >he’s still speaking English

    • #87206
      Anonymous
      Guest

      OFFICIAL RANKING OF ARMIES IN REVOLUTIONARY IRELAND:
      (BEST)
      >Irish Republican Army (1918-1922)
      >"National Army"/"Pro-Treaty IRA" (1922-1923)
      (TIED)
      >Irish Citizen Army (1913-1916)
      >Ulster Volunteers (1912-1913)
      (TIED)
      >Anti-Treaty Irish Citizen Army (1922-23)
      (WORST)

      This is woke af on their ability to complete their intended objectives, their actual ability in combat, and the motives behind their campaigns.

      • #87207
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I was going to add the RIC/RICSR+RICAD under the Anti-Treaty IRA as "worst" but they weren’t really an army/paramilitary since it was a bolster to the police. But if they were included, they would be at the bottom:
        >Failed completely to complete their objectives (defeat the IRA/end the rebellion)
        >Ineffective against the IRA, mostly took part in reprisals
        >Motives supposedly to "restore order" which wins them some points, but status quo they sought to achieve was dubious
        This puts them beneath the Anti-Treaty IRA. This is because the ATIRA while ineffective at war and having failed at their objective at least had arguably noble (if short sighted) motives in their campaign.

        • #87208
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The problem with the anti-Treaty IRA is they relied on the hope that state atrocities against them would win the public over to their side, as had happened with the British. Regrettably for them an Irishman will put up with violence from another Irishman more readily than he ought to.

          • #87209
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Most texts seem to imply that they were willing to call the bluff of the British government; the notion that the "great and terrible war" that was approaching wouldn’t actually be followed up on. I think the fact that many AT leaders like Aiken and Barry were soon keen to bring a conclusive end to the fighting shows how the reality settled in quickly enough.

            One of the only reasons it got as far as it did is the release of Lynch from Dublin after he was captured straight away.

            • #87210
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The absence of Liam Lynch from popular consciousness if quite surreal tbh. I would expect even in the somewhat vindictive social spirit that followed the civil war that there would be some kind of romantic attachment to his memory like there is for Robert E. Lee in the US even among northerners.

              • #87211
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There’s plenty of forgotten revolutionaries just like him, but I think the Civil War did that to countless people. Liam Lynch is a good example; a hugely popular and influential leader within the IRA, who had a clumsy downfall and death due to the Civil War. There were no grand speeches or big symbolic victories in the Civil War; the AT-IRA were just pushed back into the countryside, rounded up and often executed.

                The fact that Éamon De Valera is even seen by many Irish people as the "leader" of the Anti-Treaty side of the civil war-despite him having *zero* influence in the IRA and *zero* impact on the Civil War itself-is a mark of how much impact it had on the common memory of the period.

    • #87212
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >English is not a Germanic language
      Jesus freaking Christ, when will the midwit nonlinguists stop trying to talk about things they know fuck all about.
      Language classification isn’t woke af on vocabulary etymology, it’s woke af purely on direct lineage. English comes from West Germanic, ergo it is Germanic

    • #87213
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      […]
      You speak a mutilated, mutt-language that is comprised primarily of non-Germanic vocabulary, and were ruled by foreign dynasties for 1000 years, and still are, a matter of fact.

      Peasants who entertain delusions of grandeur are the aptest description of the English, you’re also the most repulsive, and deformed nation on the planet, god bless.

      If the English really are some kind of mongrel slave race then that surely that makes the Irish even more pathetic for being conquered by them?

    • #87214
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Wat Tyler’s rebellion? The English Civil War?

    • #87215
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Well its important to note in this case that up until the 1600s every Irish "rebellion" was mostly because they didn’t care about an English overlord. Irish High Kings had long been ceremonial so when suddenly an English person who doesn’t control all of Ireland announces that he is King of all of Ireland the response is
      >lol ok

    • #87217
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >two more posts in English

    • #87229
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >be irish
      >hate the english monarchy for centuries
      >english civil war comes
      >parliamentarians are fighting the monarchy over matters that have nothing to do with you
      >get a golden chance to become independent
      >instead, side with the monarchy that you hate against the parliamentarians
      >be told to fuck off
      >don’t pay attention
      >get destroyed in battle
      >be told to fuck off again
      >don’t pay attention again
      >get destroyed in battle again
      >seethe about this forever
      Micks are truly worse than scrotes.

      • #87231
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >>parliamentarians are fighting the monarchy over matters that have nothing to do with you

        Charles’s efforts to deploy an Irish army on English soil were a contributing factor to the escalation of the conflict, much like how his son James II would seal his fate by attempting the same.

        It’s important to note that the Irish were forced into the rebellion by the policy of confiscations under Borlase and Parsons, and forced to tether their allegiance to the crown by the Adventurer’s Act, which meant the parliamentarians were coming for the lands no matter what they did.

        >>get a golden chance to become independent

        Maybe you’re right. The Irish should perhaps have waged a national war of independence and their alliance with the royalists cost them dearly because of English hypocrisy and perfidy. The Anglo-Irish royalist Ormonde surrendered Dublin to Cromwell because it was "better in the hands of Protestant rebels than Catholic rebels". That act of treachery was a turning point in the war.

        >>instead, side with the monarchy that you hate against the parliamentarians

        The Irish didn’t hate the Stuarts, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic and as the Irish saw it a fellow Gael and they held it hope of her descendants returning to Catholicism. They weren’t irrational to hope for this because both Charles II and James II became Catholics.

        In the Confederate War the Irish were the most consistently in support of the legitimate monarchy even though the punitive measures taken against them would be on the basis that they were rebels.

        >>seethe about this forever

        The Irish seethe about the fact that puritans confiscated their land and refused them to a condition of slavery for centuries, one consequence of which was the Great Famine of the 19th century, as well as the atrocities they committed in the war, of which Cromwell’s massacres at Drogheda and Wexford were by no means the worst. Cromwell was restrained as far as puritan commanders in Ireland went.

      • #87232
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’ve seen some weird reasons to seethe at the Irish but seething at them for fighting on the side of their de jure legitimate sovereign during an insurrection is one of the weirdest.

        • #87236
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Nobody seethes at the Irish (except maybe Irish caths at Irish prots and viceversa too).
          The problem is how every other Irish republican has a neverending hate boner against everything English and justifies it over events that happened centuries ago. Seriously if you ever find yourself near an Irish man ask them about English history, then you will know the meaning of the word "seethe".

          >>parliamentarians are fighting the monarchy over matters that have nothing to do with you

          Charles’s efforts to deploy an Irish army on English soil were a contributing factor to the escalation of the conflict, much like how his son James II would seal his fate by attempting the same.

          It’s important to note that the Irish were forced into the rebellion by the policy of confiscations under Borlase and Parsons, and forced to tether their allegiance to the crown by the Adventurer’s Act, which meant the parliamentarians were coming for the lands no matter what they did.

          >>get a golden chance to become independent

          Maybe you’re right. The Irish should perhaps have waged a national war of independence and their alliance with the royalists cost them dearly because of English hypocrisy and perfidy. The Anglo-Irish royalist Ormonde surrendered Dublin to Cromwell because it was "better in the hands of Protestant rebels than Catholic rebels". That act of treachery was a turning point in the war.

          >>instead, side with the monarchy that you hate against the parliamentarians

          The Irish didn’t hate the Stuarts, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic and as the Irish saw it a fellow Gael and they held it hope of her descendants returning to Catholicism. They weren’t irrational to hope for this because both Charles II and James II became Catholics.

          In the Confederate War the Irish were the most consistently in support of the legitimate monarchy even though the punitive measures taken against them would be on the basis that they were rebels.

          >>seethe about this forever

          The Irish seethe about the fact that puritans confiscated their land and refused them to a condition of slavery for centuries, one consequence of which was the Great Famine of the 19th century, as well as the atrocities they committed in the war, of which Cromwell’s massacres at Drogheda and Wexford were by no means the worst. Cromwell was restrained as far as puritan commanders in Ireland went.

          >The Irish didn’t hate the Stuarts
          You are right, and I know that. Actually some Irish loved the Stuarts dearly, as can be seen in songs like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prQgX8LDLtk

          >The Irish seethe about the fact that puritans confiscated their land and refused them to a condition of slavery for centuries, one consequence of which was the Great Famine of the 19th century
          Now this, on the other hand, is ridiculous.
          The Puritans didn’t last long in power, after the end of the English Commonwealth Puritans were ousted and eventually exiled to New England. After the glorious revolution, it was different brands of Protestantism that remained in power, but not Puritanism.

          In any case, the sorry state of the Irish economy in the following centuries wasn’t the result of some trickery by "perfidious albion", but rather of the terrible work ethic and ineptitude of the Catholics.
          It’s not like England kept Ireland down, but rather the Irish refused to grow, because Catholic morality didn’t lead to the form of societal organization necessary for industrial development and Capitalism. While England, Scotland and the Netherlands became the industrial and financial powerhouses of Europe, Ireland remained stuck in the Middle Ages, like the rest of Catholic Europe.
          Note that before Cromwell, English people were known by other Europeans as lazy, stupid and savage, the same stereotypes that would later fall on the Irish in America. It’s not discrimination against the Irish, it’s simply Catholics not being suited for the modern world.

          • #87239
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You don’t know any Irish history. The Adventurer’s Act and the Act of Settlement were pretty freaking big deals for Ireland in that losing your land and being enserfed by an alien aristocracy who hates you has long term consequences for your country. The men who confiscated the land of the Irish were Cromwellians with Cromwellian mindsets. Their dominance in Ireland was consolidated in Ireland by the Williamite coup called the "Glorious Revolution".

            Have you heard of the Irish penal laws? Are you aware of the fact that Catholics were disenfranchised, barred from travelling over five miles from their houses, barred from public office and the legal professions, legally banned from teaching or even being educated abroad, working in the higher professions, buying land from Protestants, prohibited from living in certain towns etc?

            • #87275
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >The men who confiscated the land of the Irish were Cromwellians with Cromwellian mindsets.
              They weren’t Puritans nor Republicans, so in what way were they """"Cromwellians"""""?

              • #87277
                Anonymous
                Guest

                ???
                They were. The Cromwellian planters were Republican Puritan followers of Cromwell.

                • #87280
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Cromwell’s republic lasted literally just 10 years, are you actually referring to just that? You know the potato blight happened two hundred years after that?
                  If in two hundred years after Cromwell died you still couldn’t fix your shit then it just proves that caths are useless.

                  • #87286
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    The Anglo-Irish landlords who ruled Ireland until the land reforms of the late 19th century which were completed after independence in the 20th century were granted their land in Ireland for having fought for Cromwell and they kept that land even after the collapse of the Commonwealth because of the Restoration Settlement. Why is this so hard for you to understand? What about it don’t you get?

                    • #87288
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Oh, I thought that by "Cromwellian" you meant something like "following the ideas of Cromwell", and not "being a descendant of someone who followed Cromwell, despite you being completely opposed to everything Cromwell fought for".
                      Radical anti-monarchism in England died when traitor Monck ousted the child of the man that had spared his life. Trust me, it makes me sadder than you might think.

                      • #87296
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        If you knew Irish history well enough to comment on it you would have known what I meant when i described these figures as ‘Cromwellian’. You don’t however and should not comment on things of which you know nothing.

          • #87279
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Catholic morality didn’t lead to the form of societal organization necessary for industrial development
            >France
            >Habsburg Monarchy
            >even Portugal and, to a lesser extent, Spain

            • #87281
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >>France
              They had the benefit of having a great emperor such as Napoleon, something Ireland didn’t have. In the decades before Nappy living in France was quite terrible.
              >>Habsburgs
              Austria didn’t do anything of note aside from fighting decaying Ottomans and conquering Balkan shitholes.
              Despite Southern Germany being the traditional centre of German economy, culture and political and military power, they still eventually got dominated by Protestant Prussia.
              >>Portugal and Spain
              Way beyond their glory days.

              I’m not talking about the entire history of Europe, when I said "industrial development and Capitalism" I thought it was clear I was talking 18th century onwards.

              • #87287
                Svetovid
                Guest

                Of course, you’re not gonna talk about the entire history of Europe, because what little influence Britain had is limited to an extremely specific period of Industrialization.

                >shitholes
                The shitholes in question had empires of their own hundreds of years earlier than the British, and unlike the British one, theirs were ruled by their own dynasties, speaking of ineptitude, while not having the mental faculties to govern yourselves is ironic.

                >They had the benefit of having a great emperor such as Napoleon
                The only reason why England was put on the map of Medieval Europe is thanks to titanic endeavors of French dynasties and unlike the British Empire, all other contending empires were traditional, not mercantile ones (stinky). Protestants ushered in a period of unprecedented moral, spiritual and material decay on a global scale.

                >BUT GDP
                Debt-woke af economymoment.

                • #87289
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >he wrote, in English…

                  • #87295
                    Svetovid
                    Guest

                    >ruled by foreigners for 1000 years
                    >English language 75% non-Germanic vocabulary-wise
                    >90% of the empire is inhabited by Stone Age savages, portrays all of India as British, instead of just the possessions of the East Indies
                    Delusional, Norman-fueled LARP.

              • #87290
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >the decades before Nappy living in France was quite terrible
                Yes, it must have been so awful being the dominant power on the Continent for centuries.
                >they still eventually got dominated by Protestant Prussia
                Because of a failure to modernise; clinging to authoritarian, absolutist rule, and listening to Eugene of Savoy who decried the idea of a standing army.
                >Way beyond their glory days.
                While true, Portugal still had Brazil and in the case of Spain, even the shitty Borbón monarchs were starting to get around to the whole modernisation thing, about the same time as Napoopan started knocking on the door.

                • #87292
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >>the decades before Nappy
                  >Yes, it must have been so awful being the dominant power on the Continent for centuries.
                  >centuries
                  Reading, learn it.
                  And anyway, after Cromwell Britain never lost a war to France again, and France had to beg Britain to save them from the Germans TWICE.

                  >Because of a failure to modernise
                  Yes, by being Catholic.

                  >Portugal still had Brazil and in the case of Spain, even the shitty Borbón monarchs were starting to get around to the whole modernisation thing
                  Easy on the copium anon.

                  • #87298
                    Svetovid
                    Guest

                    Why were you ruled by foreigners for a thousand years?

                    • #87299
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      seems pretty clear to me?

                  • #87303
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >the decades before Nappy
                    Where France had bankrupted itself just to fuck over Britain by supporting her colonies’ attempt at independence, yes. This isn’t a problem of Catholicism, as it is a problem of having a shite ruler. Even after Louis was gone and France was still starving because a change in government doesn’t magically fix all problems, France was still winning the Revolutionary Wars before Napoleon even came to power, as a result of its preeminent position on the Continent and having the strongest armies.
                    >Yes, by being Catholic.
                    Once again, I’d say it’s born of short-sightedness of an absolute monarch rather than Catholicism, which, you could argue wouldn’t be as big a factor if it was a more limited monarchy and I would agree with you on that but I get the distinct impression you’re going to take this point and respond with "they were short-sighted because they were Catholic" or something to that effect because you’re not interested in an honest debate.
                    >Easy on the copium anon
                    Pointing out that Portugal and Spain were still wealthy (if not Great Powers) due to their colonial holdings despite their obvious administrative flaws is coping?

                  • #87360
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    explain Belgium then

    • #87230
      Anonymous
      Guest

      anglos are the scum of the freaking earth

      • #87233
        Anonymous
        Guest

        not too keen on Germanic people in general myself

    • #87234
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Any good movies/tv shows that primarily speak irish language?

      • #87235
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Ros na Rún is a melodramatic but entertaining soap opera in Irish.

        Poitín is the first Irish-language feature film and it’s worth a watch. Cré na Cille is another Irish language feature film. Kings and Black 47 are partly in English and partly in Irish. Song of Granite is an Irish-language film about the singer Seosamh Ó hÉanaí.

        • #87237
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Thanks, anon

    • #87248
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >ywn be an irish confederate commander coming home to Ireland from the Spanish Netherlands after leaving as a child with your family during the Flight of the Earls
      >ywn fight for your ancestral homeland
      >ywn kill hundreds of Scottish Covenanter soldiers as they invade Ulster
      >ywn plot to overthrow the government and create a weird Spanish protectorate republic

      vgh..the confederates…

      • #87249
        Anonymous
        Guest

        it’s interesting how often the word confederate has been used in irish history. it’s used to describe hugh o’neill and his allies, the Catholic Confederates, and later the Young Ireland confederates

        • #87250
          Anonymous
          Guest

          O’Neill and the Nine Years War is one of the most overlooked conflicts in all of Irish history. It’s weird; out of all overlooked wars its probably one of the "better known" but it is a fascinating era. "Old Gaelic Ireland" with new innovations for warfare such as firearms, all clashing with Tudor England. Really strange but brilliant war.

          • #87251
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It’s fascinating, I agree. I find Irish history gets less interesting the more removed from the Gaelic world it gets. And that was a fascinating world indeed.

    • #87252
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >England’s government and institutions were very stable after the 1600s
      >"Yeah, well what about 1066? So much for your "ENGLISH" government, heh"
      Are you scrotebrained?

      It’s fascinating, I agree. I find Irish history gets less interesting the more removed from the Gaelic world it gets. And that was a fascinating world indeed.

      I still find it interesting. 1700s are very overlooked; sure the old Gaelic world is more or less gone but politics and the emergence of the weird Anglo-Irish class is interesting, particularly with the ascension of the Patriot Movement. I always wonder what might have occurred had England not conceded to the demands of the Irish Patriots, leading to some sort of revolutionary war and independence. Not a sister republic of France as per the United Irishmen, but some sort of Anglo-Irish lead republic. Neat stuff.

    • #87255
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      I don’t know why you’re using such bizarre language or why you’re being so hysterical, but clearly you have some fucktarded idea that England ceases to be England just because the Normans came along and took over. The Kingdom of England was ruled by "Normans" longer than it was ruled by Anglo-Saxons. Your inability to comprehend the fact that Kingdoms/titles/states/nations can continue to exist regardless of who rules them betrays your own rampant scrotebraination, not mine.
      As for
      >stupid limey!
      I’m not from England/Britain, I’m from Ireland. Don’t you have a halpogroup thread to be spamming in, you delirious scrote?

    • #87259
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Irish aren’t people so they were treated accordingly. After some centuries it became common for some English aristocrats and commoners alike to keep a pet Irishman at home, as they were very reasonably capable of learning various tricks, maybe a little bit better than a donkey, still far away from a dog, nevertheless this eventually led to their present emancipation, which haven’t however affected their essence.

    • #87260
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >check back in after several hours
      >he’s still posting
      >about England
      >in English
      lmao what a cuck

    • #87261
      Anonymous
      Guest

      seems pretty clear to me?

    • #87262
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >he’s seething about sex*
      incel confirmed!!
      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

      *in English

      • #87264
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >talks like a woman, on top of the aforementioned
        >passive-aggressive humor
        Bent nationmoment.

    • #87263
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >two responses to the same post
      >wasn’t even addressed to him
      lmaooooooo
      he’s on the ropes now!

      • #87265
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >He’s on the ropes now!

        • #87266
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I wonder why the English are so ugly, they’re obviously not inbred since they got Celtic and Norse DNA, poor nutrition?

    • #87268
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >angrily renaming his saved files in my honour
      >in English
      waheeeeeeeyyyy

    • #87269
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      >if one is ruled by foreigners
      Except said foreigners become the new state and fight with the place they came from. If for you "old England" ceased to exist in 1066, then new England was born on top of it and my point still stands. Stay mad, scrote.

      • #87272
        Svetovid
        Guest

        Your point doesn’t stand because the "new" England was the result of conquest, occupation, and the subjugation of the English, and thrived(s) on it, and its ruling elite instituted Francisation in every possible aspect and stopped only once they’ve lost their last possession in France, which is several hundred years after they’ve thoroughly raped the English and his land. The first Norman king to bother to learn English lived and ruled in the 15th century, and that’s only because they were cut off from their preferred possession in France.

        An England governed by everyone but the English, and with consecutive policies detrimental to the majority of the population, meaning the English, is not an English state, but a state of occupation of the English nation, it’s that simple.

        >angrily renaming his saved files in my honour
        >in English
        waheeeeeeeyyyy

        >portrays defeat as a triumph
        Gallipoliposting.

    • #87270
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >responding to brit/poo/ migrants
      LULZ never learns

    • #87271
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >humor
      >limey
      >-ized

      >I’m bosnian, I swears it!

      • #87273
        Svetovid
        Guest

        Post jaw, Limey, so we can all have a laugh at your unholy existence.

    • #87274
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it annoys me when foreigners accuse us Irish of being obsessively hateful of the English because we aren’t, even though we have more reason to be anyone else. foreigners have a preconception of us as being consumed with historical grievance that his no basis in reality. fact of the matter is there’s no way to discuss our own history without coming across as anti-British but that isn’t our fault and we shouldn’t be blamed for it because we can’t change history and we can’t change the fact that lion’s share of wrongdoing is on the other end

      • #87276
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Reading about the intricacies of the Tudor Conquest of Ireland, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Williamite Invasion, etc. makes me seethe like nothing else tbh. It’s no wonder we aren’t taught anything but summaries in school.

      • #87278
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >it annoys me when foreigners accuse us Irish of being obsessively hateful of the English because we aren’t,
        >even though we have more reason to be anyone else

        > foreigners have a preconception of us as being consumed with historical grievance that his no basis in reality
        >fact of the matter is there’s no way to discuss our own history without coming across as anti-British
        >that lion’s share of wrongdoing is on the other end

        Writing something and then immediately contradicting yourself is some Irish custom?
        You say that you aren’t obsessed and then prove that you are indeed obsessed. No other nation does this, literally nobody else thinks about their neighbours and immediately think about the times there was bad blood between them, and even when speaking about those events in particular they don’t make it a personal thing.

        I can speak about the Battle of Aljubarrota in which the Portuguese killed a Castillian army to the last man, and the battle of Rocroi in which the tercios were brutally defeated, nevermind that the French were supposed to be our Catholic allies fighting together against prots.
        I still feel no ill will against Portuguese and French, and I’d rather remember the good times in which we were together.
        The only ones in Western Europe who are this spiteful about their historical relationship with their neighbours are the Irish, you guy are borderline Balkan-tier.

        • #87284
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >I can speak about the Battle of Aljubarrota in which the Portuguese killed a Castillian army to the last man

          That would be absurd to dwell on because it was a 14th century battle in which the slain were adult male combatants. It is not an example of a legitimate grievance because its consequences were not continuous or enduring. The thing about Ireland is all defeats resulted in the furthering of subjugation and oppression. Ireland has legitimate grievances. If after the Battle of Rocroi Spain was conquered, the Spanish people were enslaved by the French for centuries and over the generations evicted to die in famines by descendants of the French generals who fought in the battle it would be a valid comparison but it is not. With regard your history the valid comparison is with the native people of your American colonies.

        • #87294
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The most significant fact about Ireland is that the wounds from the eight centuries were never given opportunity (until recently) to heal because their opportunities were lasting. The Irish defeat in the Desmond rebellions and Nine Years’s War resulted in the plantation of Munster and Ulster, the latter of which is a living legacy. The Irish defeat in the Confederate War resulted in the seizure of Irish Catholic land and the dispossession and enserfment of the Irish Catholic nation. The Irish defeat in the Jacobite war resulted in the savagely humiliating penal laws which reduced the Irish to an even greater level of degradation. The Irish defeat in the 1798 rebellion resulted in the loss of the Irish parliament, which, unrepresentative and Protestant though it was, symbolised Irish nationhood. The disenfranchisement and helotisation produced by these wars resulted in the destruction of much of the Irish population in the Famine, which was a fruit of the Act of Settlement. What made the wounds biter and sore was the savage triumphantilism of the British faction in Ireland. To this day many northern Irish unionists venerate Cromwell, even though he contributed to killing a king of their beloved monarchy. The reason "loyalists" venerate the usurper and republican rebel Cromwell is simply because he killed a lot of taigs. The sanguinary spirit which persists to this day among loyalists is one reason Irish wounds and grievances have been so slow to heal. If Dutch and Germans Protestants were intimidated in 2021 by marching bands carrying banners of Tserclaes or the Duke of Alva as they came out of church on Sunday I’d imagine they’d be sore over past history too.

          Look in this thread. You’ll find a lot more bitter and vicious anti-Irish comments from British and British-descended posters than you’ll find anti-British comments from Irish posters. The most anti-British poster in this thread is Svetovid, who is not Irish.

    • #87282
      Anonymous
      Guest

      another one of these threads, is it…

    • #87283
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because they were Catholics and they were obliged by Papal decree to oppose all Protestants, and work towards the downfall of Protestant nations.

      It’s hard for us to grasp because religion means so little to us today and hasn’t been a driving force in European politics since the 18th century, but back then it really mattered. The English-Irish conflict has usually been interpreted through the lens of colonialism and racism that’s dominated the politics of the last few generations, but that’s purely revisionism. The root of the conflict was religious, and part of a wider European conflict largely characterized by Catholics aggressively trying to exterminate anyone who wouldn’t bow to Rome (which is a large part of the reason why the Irish and their sympathizers have tried to recast the conflict as a colonialist one, with Ireland in the role of Native Americans rather than the footsoldiers of the Inquisition).

      The English never passed a directly anti-Irish law; all the Penal Laws in Ireland were anti-Catholic. An Irishman in the 18th century could simply convert and have full legal equality with the rest of the UK’s citizens. There wasn’t even soft discrimination; Irish converts could rise to high office, and although much of the Protestant Ascendancy was dominated by English-descended settlers there was a fair number of old Irish aristocracy who’d converted, plus some upwardly mobile converts from the ordinary populace.

      It’s not a coincidence that the end of the Penal Laws roughly coincided with the Papacy recognizing the house of Hannover (which meant Irish Catholics weren’t obliged to assassinate their king if they got the chance). Full restoration of Catholic civil rights was supposed to come with the Act of Union in 1800, but the government’s plans were frustrated by the highly conservative George III and a few of his Tory allies.

      England’s treatment of Ireland was motivated simply by self-preservation.

      • #87285
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >The root of the conflict was religious, and part of a wider European conflict largely characterized by Catholics aggressively trying to exterminate anyone who wouldn’t bow to Rome (which is a large part of the reason why the Irish and their sympathizers have tried to recast the conflict as a colonialist one, with Ireland in the role of Native Americans rather than the footsoldiers of the Inquisition).
        This.

      • #87291
        Anonymous
        Guest

        > An Irishman in the 18th century could simply convert and have full legal equality with the rest of the UK’s citizens

        There was widespread opposition to converting the Irish natives because them ceasing to be Catholic meant they had the same legal status as Anglo-irish Protestants and this was considered prejudicial to the "English interest" in Ireland. There are tonnes of 18th century Anglo-Irish pamphlets to this effect. William Bedell in the 17th century had met with stiff resistance from his fellow Protestants for actually trying to convert the Irish. The garden gnomes could enjoy the same legal status as Christians in medieval Europe by converting but this fact does not negate the fact of European antisemitism.

        Ireland wasn’t in the UK in the eighteenth century for your information. The Act of Union was in 1801.

        >The English never passed a directly anti-Irish law

        What are the statutes of Kilkenny? The English repressed Irish culture harshly but generally not via legislation. The English aren’t Prussians, they’re more subtle.

        >Catholics aggressively trying to exterminate anyone who wouldn’t bow to Rome (which is a large part of the reason why the Irish and their sympathizers have tried to recast the conflict as a colonialist one, with Ireland in the role of Native Americans rather than the footsoldiers of the Inquisition

        If you want to blame anybody for calling Ireland a colony and comparing the Irish to native Americans, blame the English, because they did both. In the early modern period on they explicitly described Ireland as a colony and compared its people to "savages" from further afield.

        You are a disingenuous bigot.

    • #87293
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >thingmoment

    • #87297
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >English language 75% non-Germanic vocabulary-wise
      Hey lads, wait until this guy finds out ""French"" is 85% non-Germanic lol

      • #87300
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >h-hey "insert cope-phrase"
        Why would anyone be surprised by the fact that French isn’t Germanic when the Franks themselves adopted a high-Latin dialect? Does that somehow mitigate your rape at the hands of every non-English dynasty?

    • #87301
      This is what the Gauls don't want you to see
      Guest

      >France
      Germanic name

      >French
      Germanic name

      >Burgundy
      Germanic name

      >Normandy
      Germanic name

      >Richard
      >Robert
      >Clovis
      >Charles
      >William
      >Lothar
      >Morgan
      >Oscar
      >Godfrey
      >Geoffrey
      >Henry
      >Baldwin
      >Bertrand
      >Gerald
      >Gerard
      >Bernard
      >Frederick
      >Bertram
      >Raymond
      >Roland
      >Fulk
      >Lambert
      >Conrad
      >Tancred
      >Eric
      >Guy
      >Matilda
      >Ermengarde
      >Adele
      >Bertha
      >Emma
      Germanic names

      • #87309
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >s-see, it’s G-Germanic!!!!
        Get a load of this pan-ethnicity proletarian nationalism as a means of coping with the fact that his "nation" was ruled by foreigners for 1000 years. Daily reminder that the Normans identified as Franks, who themselves identified as Romans, and rightfully so.

    • #87302
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >the Franks themselves adopted a high-Latin dialect
      wow, this lad’s actually got the ‘gaul’ to mock others as cucks whilst taking pride in being a cuck himself!
      sad!

      • #87307
        Svetovid
        Guest

        The difference is that the Franks themselves ADOPTED a High Latin dialect to rule better, whereas you were conquered by a French-speaking elite which effectively de-Germanicized your previously Germanic language, and made it primarily Latin, and instituted a tradition of non-Englishmen ruling over English for a thousand years. If you want to see a cuck, then look in the mirror, mutt.

    • #87308
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The difference is that the Franks themselves ADOPTED a High Latin dialect to rule better, whereas you were conquered by a French-speaking elite which effectively de-Germanicized your previously Germanic language, and made it primarily Latin, and instituted a tradition of non-Englishmen ruling over English for a thousand years. If you want to see a cuck, then look in the mirror, mutt.
      ^^ he said in English ^^

      this really is too easy for me 🙂

      • #87311
        Svetovid
        Guest

        So that you can understand me, we want you to know that you’re perpetually subhuman and that your language’s vocabulary is 75% of non-English (read, non-Germanic) origin.

        >still speaking the language of your French oppressor even after he died out
        Beyond cucked.

        • #87314
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Dumb namecuck fucktard

          • #87316
            Anonymous
            Guest

            lad what’re you doing
            I’ve already broken this guy
            no need to be aggressive when his head went hours ago lol

          • #87319
            Svetovid
            Guest

            >Cope graph
            You’re out of your mind, Limey, quite literally delusional.

            • #87329
              Anonymous
              Guest

              These are words from dictionaries, not words from usage. In usage, the Germanic vocabulary dominates because it is where nearly all of the essential grammar words come from: the pronouns, the prepositions, many of the important verbs, basic every day nouns and adjectives, and so on. By and large, the words taken from French (and Latin) are secondary content words and a few notable verbs that replaced older Germanic formations.

              I don’t know why I’m explaining this when you clearly aren’t even posting in good faith and likely have no real understanding of the linguistic history of the English language.

    • #87310
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >he’s now seething about his OWN ethnicity as well as mine
      hahaha I’ve well and truly broken him

      • #87312
        Svetovid
        Guest

        >portrays his humiliation and defeat as a triumph
        Daily reminder that your nation’s most beloved king never spoke a word of English, and spent most of his life outside of England.

        >h-hehe our ethnicity
        Frenchman = the Englishman’s master
        Englishman = the Frenchman’s servant

        • #87318
          Anonymous
          Guest

          George I is the most beloved English king?

    • #87313
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >So that you can understand me
      bending to my every whim lol

      • #87315
        Svetovid
        Guest

        t. ruled by foreigners for 1000 years so hard he twists words like a bent woman

    • #87317
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >11995056
      >t. ruled by foreigners for 1000 years so hard he twists words like a bent woman
      ^^ still posting in English ^^

    • #87320
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >he still hasn’t explained why ""French"" is 85% non-Germanic

      • #87325
        Svetovid
        Guest

        Already addressed, stop coping.
        >tried to change the topic because he cannot rationalize being ruled by foreigners
        Pitiful.

    • #87323
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >As cucked as its native speakers
      ?

    • #87327
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >11995109
      >Already addressed
      no I just saw some pan-ethnicity proletarian nationalist cope

    • #87330
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Ireland vs England thread on LULZ as usual
      >All anti-English hate comes from a non-Irish person as usual
      >Irish people continue to be stigmatised as obsessed whiners as usual

      • #87333
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I’m part English and part Irish.
        I figure these points are for poos and pakkies to LARP as either side, or both, just to get the two sides to focus on each other instead of flushing those vast toilets London and Dublin.

    • #87332
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >why don’t you name a single English king after 1066, but wait, there are none
      Every King [and Queen] of England since 1066, with the sole exception of William the Conqueror himself, has been a descendant of Alfred the Great and the House of Wessex.

      • #87334
        Svetovid
        Guest

        ??? No wonder why you were ruled by foreigners for 1000 years, what a shitshow of a dullard nation.

      • #87336
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Even Louis I/VIII?

    • #87335
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >No wonder why you were ruled by foreigners for 1000 years, what a shitshow of a dullard nation
      Every King [and Queen] of England since 1066, with the sole exception of William the Conqueror himself, has been a descendant of Alfred the Great and the House of Wessex

      • #87337
        Svetovid
        Guest

        Lay off the Flouride-tainted water, Nigel.

    • #87338
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >The point of a response is to make sense, you’re slipping off all the seething, Limey, why don’t you name a single English king after 1066, but wait, there are none
      why are you seething?
      why are you seething in english?

    • #87339
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Even Louis I/VIII?
      >Lay off the Flouride-tainted water, Nigel
      Every King [and Queen] of England since 1066, with the sole exception of William the Conqueror himself, has been a descendant of Alfred the Great and the House of Wessex

    • #87341
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The Irish are pretty foul and nasty as a whole

    • #87343
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Going to start a ck2 game and unite ireland to hold the dirty anglos at bay. Thanks for the inspo LULZ

      • #87344
        Anonymous
        Guest

        these threads raise my blood pressure tbh

        • #87347
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why

          • #87348
            Anonymous
            Guest

            dumb bong takes

    • #87345
      Anonymous
      Guest

      God imagine if this was their flag

      • #87346
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This should be the flag. What’s the point in a green version of the Scottish flag? One should at least use Saint Patrick’s Saltire (red) instead of Saint Andrew’s Saltire (white).

        • #87350
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #87351
            Anonymous
            Guest

            According to James Ware the authentic arms of Ireland are those which we would now call the Connaught flag. The fascinating thing is the flags/arms/insignia of all five provinces of Ireland (including Meath) with the exception of Ulster have each been described as the national arms of Ireland at various point.

          • #87353
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The flag of Munster, like the flag of Leinster (

            This should be the flag. What’s the point in a green version of the Scottish flag? One should at least use Saint Patrick’s Saltire (red) instead of Saint Andrew’s Saltire (white).

            ) and Connaught (

            According to James Ware the authentic arms of Ireland are those which we would now call the Connaught flag. The fascinating thing is the flags/arms/insignia of all five provinces of Ireland (including Meath) with the exception of Ulster have each been described as the national arms of Ireland at various point.

            ) has served as the national insignia/arms/flag of Ireland and like the other provincial flags it is far superior to the tricolour aesthetically. Makes the ugliness of the tricolour all the more frustrating!

            • #87354
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Oops forgot pic

              • #87355
                Anonymous
                Guest

                The Meath flag isn’t as good as the others but it’s still better than the tricolour

                • #87357
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  It’s a flag of dubious pedigree but aesthetically speaking Saint Patrick’s Saltire isn’t bad. Better than the tricolour.

    • #87352
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >irish national epic
      >it’s about some guys fighting over a cow

      • #87356
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >greek national epic
        >it’s about some guys fighting over a hoe

    • #87358
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Someone post the extremely autistic Ulster pictures and stories, like that one about the Ulster guys who tried to assassinate an IRA member at a pub but instead killed civilians and then incidentally a completely different IRA guy by chance, and they built a makeshift monument to the Ulsterman like the civilians were collaborators and the IRA guy they did get actually was the real target all along.

      • #87361
        Anonymous
        Guest

        For me it’s the Miami showband killing

    • #87359
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The English are just really, really big poopyholes.

    • #87362
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      If a flag with royal associations is intolerable to you why not go with the Starry Plough? Anything is better than the tricolour orange and green eyesore

      • #87376
        Anonymous
        Guest

        To this I say, I like the tricolour. If you’re dead set on changing it, though, then just use our coat of arms.

        Azure, a harp Or, stringed Argent.

        • #87377
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Azure, a harp Or, stringed Argent.

          woke af

    • #87363
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Oh, we’re talking Irish flags? Unreal. How about this one? It was proposed to Eamon De Valera-I’m not even joking. It was one of many flags with some form of cross on it, to represent the church.

      • #87366
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Disappointed in De Valera. Saint George’s Cross flanked by Green and Orange… aesthetically and symbolically the cringe is unsurpassable

    • #87364
      Anonymous
      Guest

      For me, it’s the sunburst flag.

    • #87365
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Derry City, anyone? Supposedly the Skeleton represents some famous lord who died in the dungeons, but I like to imagine its representative of how awful the city is to besiege.

    • #87368
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >the year is 1928
      >you are tasked with creating a new flag for Ireland
      >but not for the 26 counties-for a theoretical UNITED Ireland
      >you get to work
      >you make pic related

    • #87369
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So De Valera turns down your first "flag with a cross." No problem, lets just make the cross the entire flag-sorted. This one was proposed to De Valera by John Harrington.

      • #87374
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I really hate that the tricolour equates Protestantism with Orangism. It’s disrespectful to Protestants to equate their beliefs with Orangism, and it’s craven and slavish to accord the colour Orange a part on the national flag. Protestants are unassailably a part of Ireland. Orangism however deserves no place of honour

    • #87370
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Still no luck on getting a "Christian" Irish flag? Fuck it, slap it front and centre. Can’t miss. This one is from the 1950s.

    • #87371
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Fuck it, lets get freaky. Lots of naval ensigns from the Free State Period are bizarre.

    • #87372
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Maybe some "kino" for everyone. Here’s the flag of the Dublin Volunteers-part of the wider Volunteer militias in the late 1700s. The militias were part of the Patriot movement, and brought Ireland to the brink of having its own American-Esque revolutionary war.

      • #87373
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This flag is portrayed in this painting of the Volunteers, on the left.

      • #87375
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This flag is portrayed in this painting of the Volunteers, on the left.

        Very aesthetic insignia

        I like the "Dutch Billy" style houses in the square in the painting btw. Built in Dutch style to show Protestant support for the Williamite revolution. I’m a Jacobite sympathiser meself but I love that gable style

    • #87380
      Anonymous
      Guest

      anglos are not people.

Viewing 72 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.