Why England Needed Ireland in the Middle Ages

It's hard to find any one source that pins down the various reasons that
England needed to control Ireland in the middle ages. Here's my best
shot on my own.

* Ireland was not the isolated entity that we often think it was.
There was much direct contact between Ireland and continental
Europe, including France and the Iberian Peninsula. If one of the
England's enemies wished to do England harm, one of its strategies
might be to establish bases in Ireland; thus, England could be
subject to simultaneous attack from opposite directions. In the
fifteenth century, memories of David Bruce's attempt to capture
Ireland would still be fresh. Further, the Spanish could be a bit
of a problem.

* The Yorks were the Earls of Ulster, but this title was hollow.
Before Lionel, Duke of Clarence, married Elizabeth de Burgh,
Elizabeth's uncles and cousins had seized and divided her
inheritance among themselves. If the Yorks had been successful
dynasts, I would not be surprised to know that they might attempt
to reclaim their Irish lands.

* Ireland had strong trade relationships with Western Europe and
Scandinavia. England did not want competition in these markets. By
controlling Irish trade, as England did through the ports of
Wexford, Dublin, Youghal, Waterford, Cork, Galway,etc, England
could act as trade broker for the British Isles.

* If England controlled Irish trade, England could establish a
closed trade loop with Ireland in much the way later
Empire-builders did under the mercantile system.

* By controlling Irish ports, the English crown also controlled
Irish port duties; thus, crown revenues were substantially
enhanced. The more money the crown had to hand, the less often the
crown had to go begging for funds from other sources.

* The Church in England likely saw the Irish Church as a generator
of land, offices and revenue.

* The Crown likely saw Ireland as a resource from which lands and
offices could be given as reward to useful and loyal people and
institutions.

* Control of Ireland would go a long way toward completing Edward
I's goal of creating a British empire under the crown of England.
It would be hoped that such an empire would create a sense of
stability in the British Isles.

I'm sure there's much more to this issue than the points I've raised,
but I do think that England's desire to control Ireland arises primarily
from strategic and economic motivators.

English ambition in Ireland was not satisfied until Tudor and
Commonwealth times, when England used a heavy hand to subdue Ireland,
and even then Ireland was not subjugated. Before this time, the English
Crown had been too busy trying to extend and to consolidate its power in
Britain and on the continent. Ireland was always next on the list.

Very asute observations. I agree that Ireland had far reaching ties with
the Continent and could be seen as

"sleeping with the enemy" by Britain.



L.M.L.,

Janet

I would argue that England did not "need" Ireland during the Middle
Ages. It posed little threat, and offered few opportunities for wealth
creation. On the other hand, the Medieval Kings of England had been
granted the right to hold dominion over Ireland by the Pope who, in
turn, wished to impose Catholicism on England's sister island. There
were also renegade nobles (such as Strongbow), who could well have
built-up private fiefdoms that might have posed a threat to the English
throne.

Having said that, the situation in more recent times was vastly
different, insofar as England was, on occasions, threatened by ruthless
European tyrants who could have used Ireland as a base for hostile
operations against England. Moreover, from the 16th century onwards,
relations between the two islands were poisoned by religious
differences, while Ireland itself became divided along religious lines
(I say religious, rather than "ethnic", because DNA research is now
suggesting that there are few differences between the largely Celtic
populations of both islands).

The question should surely have been "why should the Medieval kings of
England have wanted to control Ireland". England, as a political
entity, had little or no interest in Ireland until after the
Reformation.

In retrospect, I think you're right. There was no real 'need'. There was
perhaps more of a compulsion, at least at some points during the middle
ages.

Perhaps the point I should have been making is that the further back in
time we go, the more simplistically we view interrelationships. The
relationship between England and Ireland must have been quite complex.
It seems to me that our usual sources concerning Richard III and The
Wars of the Roses provide snippets of information concerning
English/Irish affairs that rather beg further questions. For example,
why did Desmond consider himself close enough to Edward IV to make
negative remarks about Edward's marriage? Ross and his ilk do not touch
the 'back-story'. Irish sources certainly hint at it. It is alleged that
Desmond took part in nine battles (and/or skirmishes?) during the Wars
of the Roses. Apparently such dedication to the cause gave him the
prerogative to comment on Edward's marriage. Other sources say that
Edward sought Desmond's opinion on the matter, since he considered
Desmond to be a close advisor. If such is the case, why don't we see
Desmond's name turning up at other times? Further, were Desmond's
remarks about Elizabeth Woodville the real reason for his beheading by
Tiptoft. I really doubt it. There are sources that consider Desmond to
be more Irish than the Irish. These sources also speak of people
considering Desmond to be true king of Ireland. Edward wouldn't like that.

Other issues needing 'back stories' are Lord Cordes' (Phillipe de
Crévecouer) absolute hatred of the English, and Richard III's directive
that ships going to Iceland travel in convoys. I think that Lord Cordes
likely had disputes with the English over lands close to or in the Vexin
that he considered to be his. Concerning the convoys, Ross looks at the
issue as a problem with French piracy, but I think the problem concerned
piracy in general which must have been engaged in by most, if not all,
of the the western and northern European countries. England also had its
share of pirates (privateers?)

> I would argue that England did not "need" Ireland during the Middle
> Ages. It posed little threat, and offered few opportunities for wealth
> creation. On the other hand, the Medieval Kings of England had been
> granted the right to hold dominion over Ireland by the Pope who, in
> turn, wished to impose Catholicism on England's sister island. There
> were also renegade nobles (such as Strongbow), who could well have
> built-up private fiefdoms that might have posed a threat to the English
> throne.
>
> Having said that, the situation in more recent times was vastly
> different, insofar as England was, on occasions, threatened by ruthless
> European tyrants who could have used Ireland as a base for hostile
> operations against England. Moreover, from the 16th century onwards,
> relations between the two islands were poisoned by religious
> differences, while Ireland itself became divided along religious lines
> (I say religious, rather than "ethnic", because DNA research is now
> suggesting that there are few differences between the largely Celtic
> populations of both islands).
>
>

I would agree with that.

I've never seen it written, but I assume that the Yorks would be galled
that the de Burgh inheritance was not in their hands. Unfortunately
reclaiming this inheritance could not be a first priority both because
of their fight to claim and to maintain the throne of England. Had they
been successful dynasts, I think they would have pursued their Irish
claims.

Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
> The question should surely have been "why should the Medieval kings of
> England have wanted to control Ireland". England, as a political
> entity, had little or no interest in Ireland until after the
> Reformation.
>
>

Because it was there.

Richard G

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> The question should surely have been "why should the Medieval kings
> of England have wanted to control Ireland".

Good enough reason, I suppose.

rgcorris wrote:
>
> Because it was there.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
> >
> > The question should surely have been "why should the Medieval kings
> > of England have wanted to control Ireland".
>
>