# Gaelic irish warfare



## sean m

Hello everyone,

Considering that Gaelic Ireland was known as a place of great knowlede and had a well developed society. The art of warfare was considerably less developed. It would seem that the accounts state the use most sucessful against the British seems to have been guerilla warfare. Would anyone here know why the Gaelic manner of conducting warfare was so lacking even though the area had considerable interaction with the outside world :rage:


----------



## medicineman

Just because  :dunno:?

Could be the guerilla mentality was there because, to be blunt, who the (add you own expletive) would want to take over Eire in the first place?  Well, other than the British, who I suppose were/are used to the general dreariness of the place of course...

MM


----------



## Old Sweat

As luck would have it, I am reading a study of North American wars between the Colonists and the Natives in the period 1675-1815. Part of this study discussed the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland and its similarities and differences with the early years of warfare in New England. Gaelic Ireland was a Celtic tribal society and their way of war did not necessarily lend itself to classic military formations and maneuver. Think impulsive charges by an armed mob. If surprise can be achieved or a conventional force attacked on march, more often that not, the Irish would prevail.

However, the English eventually succeeded by what we would recognize as counter-insurgency tactics, although it was also used in conquering areas and populations that did not have more than a basic agricultural economy. These tactics included:

a. exploiting clan rivalries;

b. gaining control over the Irish source of supplies;*

c. adapting to local conditions; and

d. eventually wearing down the defenders.

* This could be include brutal scorched earth tactics.


----------



## irish

> who the (add you own expletive) would want to take over Eire in the first place


what the fudge is that supposed to mean ... that dreary auld place has bred some hardened souls ye' know  

I think Old Sweat nails it for the most part. However, understanding a centuries old conflict like this requires a deeper look at the very intimate connections between all those within the British Isles (why does that still sting when I say it), the subtle differences between Gaelic and Celtic culture/tribes and the plantation of British citizens in Ireland (ever wonder why a Belfast accent sounds like a Scottish accent).
There are characters that stand out and helped unify struggles, whether it was against the Brits or not - the pirate queen Grainne Mhaol (Grace O'Malley), Brian Boru, etc. 
Dig a little deeper.


----------



## Old Sweat

Agreed. For the most part I was referring to the sixteenth century and a bit of the seventeenth. There were previous Norman (any name that starts with Fitz had its roots in Norman England) and latter incursions over the centuries up and into the Tudors. There also was a lot of subseqent settlement of Ulster, especially by Protestant Scots. These "Scotch-Irish" later settled much of Appalachia and some authorities say they made up a large part of the Confederate army.

The story is too complex to handle in short posts here. Suffice to say it is not a pleasant subject.


----------



## medicineman

irish said:
			
		

> what the fudge is that supposed to mean ... that dreary auld place has bred some hardened souls ye' know



Including some of my ancestors, and a few of my favorite beverages...

I think OS has kind of nailed things - it would be a whole pile of things that are hard to be expounded upon here...and we're not going to write your history paper for you there master m  .

MM


----------



## Edward Campbell

Plus, you need to go back well before the Tudors, who, in a way, reconquored Ireland. The Anglo-Scots colonization of Ireland goes back to the time of Henry II.


----------



## vonGarvin

Dont' forget that the Celts used to be in Central Europe, and were gradually pushed north and west over the centuries.


----------



## OldSolduer

Irish whisky might have something to do with that


----------



## Kirkhill

The Anglo-Scots Domination of Ireland?

How about Clan Diarmid's Domination of Pictland Campbell?

Jings, ye pick a fight then complain whan the other yin tries to mak guid thir losses.  ;D

The boats have always run both ways between Larne and Stranraer.

And as for those Ulster Scots Plantations - ask the Grahams, good reivers that they were, how many of them volunteered for the trip and how many of them were sent over the water by Jimmy Stewart the Saxt.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> (any name that starts with Fitz had its roots in Norman England) ..



Have to point out that this is not the case for Fitzpatrick. It was orginally MacGiolaPadraig (from which the less common McGillPatrick) but got changed to Fitzpatrick so as to appear to be Norman. And to further confuse things the Normans descended from Vikings.

Now if we can only get agreement on how to spell whiskey.


----------



## the 48th regulator

sean m said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> 
> Considering that Gaelic Ireland was known as a place of great knowlede and had a well developed society. The art of warfare was considerably less developed. It would seem that the accounts state the use most sucessful against the British seems to have been guerilla warfare. Would anyone here know why the Gaelic manner of conducting warfare was so lacking even though the area had considerable interaction with the outside world :rage:



Can you clarify what period is the "Gaelic Irish"?

dileas

tess


----------



## Edward Campbell

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Have to point out that this is not the case for Fitzpatrick. It was orginally MacGiolaPadraig (from which the less common McGillPatrick) but got changed to Fitzpatrick so as to appear to be Norman. And to further confuse things the Normans descended from Vikings.
> 
> Now if we can only get agreement on how to spell whiskey.




All civilized people do agree on how to spell whisky.


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All civilized people do agree on how to spell whisky.



Then I'm a heathen barbarian.......like my ancestors...


----------



## medicineman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All civilized people do agree on how to spell whisky.



Yes we can...J-A-M-E-S-O-N.

Now back to sean m's history paper.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

I think your spelling is wrong.

JACK DANIELS  is the proper spelling for whisky


----------



## Journeyman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> JACK DANIELS  is the proper spelling for whisky


               :goodpost:


----------



## PMedMoe

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think your spelling is wrong.
> 
> JACK DANIELS  is the proper spelling for whisk*e*y



TFTFY.


----------



## Journeyman

:facepalm:


Besides, it's like Zen; it's not what's on the outside label, it's what is _within_ that's valued


----------



## sean m

Haha sorry gentlemen, about the confusion. If whiskey is a more argued topic, hopefully we can agree on the fact that irish beer especially Harp is the best from all Western Europe. haha. 

Thank you Mr. Old Sweat and Mr. Irish and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Technoviking and others for your information.

@ Mr. Tess the date would be up until 1607 AD.

Yet in regards to celtic warfare, it seems that the Scottish had more sucess which is odd since both peoples are celtic. Also the Irish set up colonies in Scotland in fact Scotland derives from the term "scotti" who were a people from Ireland! Score one for the paddies haha ;D.

The only king to have united Ireland, and a more united army (even though there was still difficult in this regard) was Brian Boru. 

It seems that guerilla warfare had continued until this very day, being the Irish Republican Army. The gaelic irish warfare seemed to have derived from mainly it and run raids, never atttacks with sustained occupation. Yet even due to this fact, as the Irish traveled and experienced different cultures, why the did not adapt military techniques. They were more than intelligent enough since they were the only people in Western Europe who spoke Latin in court.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

I think you have to distinguish the tactics and the strategy here.  A single victory in battle means very little if there is no strategic value and so you lose the war. There was no unified national strategy for much of Ireland's history and lots of factional tribalism (Due to the lack of a national leader? : Brian Boru is a little bit mythological in my un fully educated opinion as compared to say the historical Robert the Bruce). Strongbow (Richard de Clare, not the cider ) was invited to Ireland after all by one chieftain so he could beat up on another one. One could argue when a "national strategy" was fully formed but I think we are getting beyond your defined period. But like the persistance of guerrilla tactics in modern Ireland so has factionalism persisted.

Check out the wild geese and multiple irish regiments in the British Empire Army and others; no lack of victories there. But again perhaps beyond your specific time period.


One additional point of connection here : the advanced military tactics that the travelling classes would have seen requires training which requires a commitment to an agreed upon strategy and so on rather than just showing up for the muster, painting up, shouting loudly and  running at the enemy.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think your spelling is wrong.
> 
> JACK DANIELS  is the proper spelling for whisky



Being an Irishman of open mind, I don't care where it's been distilled or what's on the label, as long as there's enough for everyone.


----------



## the 48th regulator

sean m said:
			
		

> @ Mr. Tess the date would be up until 1607 AD.



Why?

dileas

tess


----------



## mariomike

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Why?



I hope this helps: "The flight into exile in 1607 of Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone and Rory O'Donnell, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell following their defeat at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601 and the suppression of their rebellion in Ulster in 1603 is seen as the watershed of Gaelic Ireland. It marked the destruction of Ireland's ancient Gaelic nobility following the Tudor conquest and cleared the way for the Plantation of Ulster. After this point, the English authorities in Dublin established real control over Ireland for the first time, bringing a centralised government to the entire island, and successfully disarmed the Gaelic lordships.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland#Anglo-Norman_occupation

Other sources:
"The Flight abroad in 1607 of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell and their followers is generally reckoned to mark the end of Gaelic Ireland as a distinct political system.":
http://www.google.ca/#pq=gaelic+irish+1607&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=14&gs_id=1g&xhr=t&q=gaelic+ireland+1607&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=gaelic+ireland+1607&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=cb1e10673fe52159&biw=1152&bih=662&bs=1


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All civilized people do agree on how to spell whisky.



Yes.  It's C-R-O-W-N R-O-Y-A-L.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snakes. Why does it always have to be snakes?


----------



## sean m

@ Mr. AJFitzpatrick. What you say is very true, thank you for your input.  Do you think that if there was a unified strategy that Ireland would have been more stronger militarily.  It seems that this idea was of not having a unified strategy goes further back than the English invasion. Yet as for Brian Boru, the facts that our professor gives seem to have a lot of supporting facts. He seems to have created a more organized military, even a form of navy. He seemed to also have been the only true high king of Ireland, as the professor implies. Do you think had he not been killed he would have had a greater impact on irish warfare?

@Mr.MarioMike. Thank you very much for this piece of information, it is of great help indeed.


----------



## sean m

HAHA! nice pict :nod:ure!


----------



## sean m

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQOt8eOPr4k


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

sean m said:
			
		

> @ Mr. AJFitzpatrick. What you say is very true, thank you for your input.  Do you think that if there was a unified strategy that Ireland would have been more stronger militarily.  It seems that this idea was of not having a unified strategy goes further back than the English invasion. Yet as for Brian Boru, the facts that our professor gives seem to have a lot of supporting facts. He seems to have created a more organized military, even a form of navy. He seemed to also have been the only true high king of Ireland, as the professor implies. Do you think had he not been killed he would have had a greater impact on irish warfare?




You may want to be careful of whose opinions you take account of ... I'm neither an historian nor military ... that being said my opinion follows ... {based on reading a whole bunch of books for "fun"}.

1. Do you think that if there was a unified strategy that Ireland would have been more stronger militarily.
Absolutely

2. Do you think had he (Brian Boru) not been killed he would have had a greater impact on irish warfare? 
... for this opinion  I'll accept for this case the historicity of Boru and the 'facts' as presented to you ...  
This is far too speculative ... it isn't so much what Boru did it is what his successors did , why wasn't there another High King in other words? Chieftainship in the Irish clans wasn't by lineal descent but partially by selection from relatives of the Chieftain on the somewhat nebulous concept of 'merit' and how many potatoes were involved so it isn't so much the lack of persistence 'greatest' through lineal descent by a misjudgement of merit . Why did the empire of Alexander the Great fall apart for instance after he died, a lack of unifying leader (Probably too much of the great man theory here).

and just so you know it is spelt LAGAVULIN.


----------



## Kirkhill

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> ......
> and just so you know it is spelt LAGAVULIN.



Auchentoshan  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

While it is true that the Scotti were, indeed, Irish - like the Campbells - we need to be a bit careful with times.

There were counter migrations across the Irish Sea in _about_ 300 - 500 CE (during the so called Great Migrations in Europe). "Irish" came and settled the West of Scotland and "Scots" went to Ireland - both, perhaps, under pressure from the migrating Celts about whom Technoviking wrote a few post back. Both Scotland and Ireland remained relatively _uninteresting_ to Europe due to their geographic isolation (Ireland) and poverty (Scotland) until the time of the Vikings who overcame the barrier of the Irish Sea and who, under population pressure at home, settled the East of Scotland, putting further population pressure on that country.

Ireland and the highlands and island of Scotland remained relatively untouched by the English until _circa_ 1170-1180 when Henry II invaded Ireland and won it easily and then, just a few years later, defeated an invading Scots army (killing King William the Lion)  at Alnwick (Northumberland).

There _may_ have been a religious motive to Henry's invasion of Ireland. From earliest times the Irish Christian church was out of step, but some would day intellectually much superior to, the Roman Christian church. The pope who approved Henry's invasion plans was Adrian IV, an Englishman.

In any event, Henry set the whole "Irish question" thing in motion.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Irish (or Scots) tactics. My sense of the history of the times is that neither had a _strategy_ worth the name because both were too occupied with internal political struggles to need, much less implement such a thing. From about 1328 (Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton) Scotland came increasingly under French sway - on the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. From about 1500 Ireland was more and more influenced by Spain, for the same reasons.

The animosity between England and Scotland, on one hand, and Ireland, on the other, reached what I regard as its peak in 1939-45 when the Irish, usually tacitly, but too often actively, supported Nazi Germany. The depth of the Irish hatred for the English (and Scots) allowed (impelled?) the government of the day and the Irish people to ignore the manifestly evident evil of Nazi Germany and support and even aid it in the war against Britain.


__________

BTW, it's none of the above; it's


----------



## Old Sweat

A slight sidetrack which may give us a bit of background. In 1992 my wife and I spent ten days in Ireland via rented car and B&Bs. Towards the end of our trip we were making our way back towards Dublin when we spotted a stone tower just off the highway with an open sign by the side of the road. We went in and found the (English) owner, who gave us a guided tour and commentary.

The tower was a medieval keep complete with counter clockwise staircases to impede any attackers use of swords. It had been built after the first English takeover and remained in use as a fortification more or less continually well into the seventeenth century. When Cromwell's forces were marching west across Ireland, they bumped the defenders of this keep, who resisted. The English bombarded the place with cannon and eventually attacked and captured it. After putting the defenders to the sword, they left a small garrison in place and resumed their march.

And that, boys and girls, is the story of Ireland in a nutshell.


----------



## irish

Firstly gentlemen, I believe that if one is stuck on the spelling of whiskey, one is missing the point.  :nod:



> Irish people ... ignore the manifestly evident evil of Nazi Germany and support and even aid it


I think this is an overt simplification and rather false in my opinion. Many, many thousands of Irish, as has long been tradition, served in the British army during WW2. Due to a nascent republican consciousness being nursed at the time, these men were occasionally shunned upon return - but we speak with great pride in Ireland of this. You must remember that Ireland was just moving through the aftermath of a civil war. de Valera, one might assume, declared Irish neutrality as a political gesture in opposition to Britain and to consolidate his tenuous hold on the deeply republican elements of the nation but many in the country remember it as a great embarrassment (it should be noted that Ireland wasn't the only country to declare neutrality). Many Irish have extensive family ties throughout the UK and as I alluded to earlier, drawing conclusive lines along the basis of nation state in regards to this discussion is fairly useless. To echo Kirkhill's point, the ferries between Ireland and Britain have long carried people both ways - duty free does kick in outside the 3 mile limit so sometimes people just stayed on board . 
The IRA may have made some vain attempts to support Germany but the IRA have never, in recent times, represented the majority of the Irish people. If you look at the history books, I think you'll find that the Irish state offered all manner of support to Britain during the war, both informal (nurses, factory workers, enlistment, etc.) and, quietly, formal (access to and support within territorial waters, internment of German POWs, etc.).  My own grandfather spoke with pride of guarding German POWs in The Curragh K lines, while 'going for a smoke' when tommies breached the wire and headed for safe houses in Kildare and then on to the border.
As mentioned before, the shared histories of these peoples occupies so much of the grey area that I feel it becomes redundant to make sweeping statements about either side.
Now, all of this whiskey talk has left me with a shockin' dry throat .... cough, cough.


----------



## OldSolduer

I have to agree with Irish here. There was a small lot in Ireland that worked with the Nazis....but they were largely inept.

It has been a long tradition of Ireland's sons to seek their fortune elsewhere. My mum, a Scots/Irish lady, had two uncles or great uncles serve in the Union Army in the US Civil war...both Irishmen. 

The character in the Sharpe's Rifles series - the Sergeant Major Patrick O'Toole  is an example of this, although fictional.


----------



## Old Sweat

The debate over the spelling of whisk(e)y may be seen as proof of the adage that, if it wasn't for drink, the Irish would be running the world.

 :dunno:


----------



## Edward Campbell

irish said:
			
		

> Firstly gentlemen, I believe that if one is stuck on the spelling of whiskey, one is missing the point.  :nod:
> I think this is an overt simplification and rather false in my opinion. *Many, many thousands of Irish, as has long been tradition, served in the British army* during WW2. Due to a nascent republican consciousness being nursed at the time, these men were occasionally shunned upon return - but we speak with great pride in Ireland of this. You must remember that Ireland was just moving through the aftermath of a civil war. de Valera, one might assume, declared Irish neutrality as a political gesture in opposition to Britain and to consolidate his tenuous hold on the deeply republican elements of the nation but many in the country remember it as a great embarrassment (it should be noted that Ireland wasn't the only country to declare neutrality). Many Irish have extensive family ties throughout the UK and as I alluded to earlier, drawing conclusive lines along the basis of nation state in regards to this discussion is fairly useless. To echo Kirkhill's point, the ferries between Ireland and Britain have long carried people both ways - duty free does kick in outside the 3 mile limit so sometimes people just stayed on board .
> The IRA may have made some vain attempts to support Germany but the IRA have never, in recent times, represented the majority of the Irish people. If you look at the history books, I think you'll find that the Irish state offered all manner of support to Britain during the war, both informal (nurses, factory workers, enlistment, etc.) and, quietly, formal (access to and support within territorial waters, internment of German POWs, etc.).  My own grandfather spoke with pride of guarding German POWs in The Curragh K lines, while 'going for a smoke' when tommies breached the wire and headed for safe houses in Kildare and then on to the border.
> As mentioned before, the shared histories of these peoples occupies so much of the grey area that I feel it becomes redundant to make sweeping statements about either side.
> Now, all of this whiskey talk has left me with a shockin' dry throat .... cough, cough.




No question about the long, deep and, usually, loyal service of Irish men in the British fleet and army. But you might want to consider that the last man ever executed for mutiny in the British Army was an Irish soldier in the Connaught Rangers - an Irish Regiment that mutinied (in India) in 1920, demanding a British withdrawal from Ireland.


----------



## irish

I believe this to be true OS. 
I think it went something like this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECkA216RL4Y
I'm not sure if it's sad or not, but the Irish gaelic name for whisk(e)y, uisce beatha, does translate to water of life.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The debate over the spelling of whisk(e)y may be seen as proof of the adage that, if it wasn't for drink, the Irish would be running the world.
> 
> :dunno:




iper: Or that the Scots, perhaps with aid of strong drink, actually did run the world (for a wee while, anyway).  






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   etc, etc, etc ...


----------



## irish

> an Irish soldier in the Connaught Rangers


Indeed .. we have been known to pick a fight whilst in the middle of an ongoing agro, but hopefully this doesn't sully the name of the Irishmen who proudly served during WW2, knowing the bigger picture was worth laying down the tricolor for a moment.


----------



## Edward Campbell

irish said:
			
		

> Indeed .. we have been known to pick a fight whilst in the middle of an ongoing agro, but hopefully this doesn't sully the name of the Irishmen who proudly served during WW2, knowing the bigger picture was worth laying down the tricolor for a moment.




No, of course it doesn't.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that British colonization in Ireland was particularly cruel (think of Edward, the of the younger brother of Robert the Bruce, and his _adventures_ in Ireland in the early 14th century) and inept. And it bred deep and enduring hatred which persisted into the 20th and, I suppose, the 21st centuries. 

By the middle of the 19th century, during Wellington's government, the British began to consider their treatment of Ireland and the Irish. By the turn of the 20th century the "Irish question" dominated British politics and it (the preoccupation with Ireland), I have argued, led to both the worst single foreign policy blunder in 2,000 years of British history - the _Entente cordiale_ (1904), and the destruction (_circa_ 1930) of the Liberal Party in Britain.

But we, all of us, tend to personalize history to suit what our people, especially our families did, or didn't do.


----------



## Scott

You Heathens have it all wrong...

It's Dalwhinnie.

Or if you like single grain...Cameron Brigg, a good Fife grog.


----------



## Old Sweat

This is a bit off the track, but does illustrate a tendency for optimism, lost causes and belligerence on the part of the Irish.

Doctor David Shanahan from Carleton will be giving a talk titled "The Last Invasion of Canada" on the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870 at 1900 hours on 25 October in Margaret Bourgeoise school in Merrickville. I have heard him speak on the Fenians before, and he is both knowledgeable and entertaining. If coming from the direction of Kemptville on County Road 43, when you arrive at the main intersection do not turn right to cross the Rideau Canal, but proceed straight ahead past the blockhouse. The school is across the street from the community centre which is just past the bend in the road. If coming from the north, after crossing the canal, turn right.


----------



## sean m

That should be interesting indeed. in term's of irish republicanism, there has seemed to be alot of financial and political support from America. Does anyone know if the British tried to put pressure on the American government to stop it. Today does anyone think that Irish republicanism is relevant, since it has had an impact on irish gaelic culture for around 100 years and more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

sean m said:
			
		

> That should be interesting indeed. in term's of irish republicanism, there has seemed to be alot of financial and political support from America. Does anyone know if the British tried to put pressure on the American government to stop it. Today does anyone think that Irish republicanism is relevant, since it has had an impact on irish gaelic culture for around 100 years and more.



They likely did, but not overtly. I think if you dig deep enough into American Irish Catholics and their support of the IRA, you'll likely find a Kennedy or two involved. i.e. Senator Ted Kennedy. Just sayin'


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

recceguy said:
			
		

> They likely did, but not overtly. I think if you dig deep enough into American Irish Catholics and their support of the IRA, you'll likely find a Kennedy or two involved. i.e. Senator Ted Kennedy. Just sayin'



And as we drift further from the original question and in view of ETA's apparent suspension of armed conflict. Does anyone know if ETA got any of their money (and/or moral support) from the US ? (quite a few 'Basques-Americans ' in Nevada and Idaho).


----------



## irish

> Today does anyone think that Irish republicanism is relevant, since it has had an impact on irish gaelic culture for around 100 years and more.


sean m
Do you mean within the Irish republic and/or the island of Ireland? I'm from the republic, so can only really answer from that perspective. 
The spectrum that runs between Irish national pride, Irish nationalism and what I think you mean by Irish republicanism (IRA, INLA,etc.) is a tricky one to navigate and raw republicanism of this brand is a contentious area within the republic. 
Firstly, this issue is rarely if ever talked about openly. Something akin to CF OPSEC is written into the dna of people in the republic and the phrase 'loose talk costs lives' is something I heard a lot growing up there. Significant republican funding was derived from various legal and not so legal means in the south so republicans were often treated in the same manner as gangsters - romanticized by those who had no dealings with them, hated by those who were subject to their bully-boy tactics and admired/feared by those who benefitted from their community efforts. I'm from an inner city area in Dublin and an auto-theft epidemic in the late 70s/early 80s was, quite frankly, well dealt with by IRA vigilante justice. However, here we introduce the usual slippery slope when the 'police' aren't well policed and I saw more than one decent person chased out of my housing development simply for picking the wrong fight after a few pints down the local.
Irish national pride runs deep in the south and people are very proud that we stood up again and again after taking it on the chin from the crown. This could frequently blur into overt nationalism during something as trivial as the rugby triple crown or something more significant, like the Bobby Sands/hunger strike moment in the 80s. However, this usually stopped just short of out and out republicanism. War had been on our shores for a long, long time and people knew only too well what the costs were. (I suggest renting the very good movie _The Wind that Shakes The Barley_ or reading Sean O'Casey's _Juno and the Paycock_ for a look at how recent rebellion and civil war fragmented families). In the south, I think we often looked away from the troubles in the North, reflecting on the sentiment, 'there, but for the grace of god go I'. The IRA seat of power had shifted from Dublin to the north in the 50s/60s I believe and with it the evolution of both cultures shifted onto their own respective courses. This was fairly well recognized in the south and many people also felt, as a result of this that we had no real right to comment. I think the vast majority of people in the south long for a peaceful island and, from my limited experiences in the north, I think this to be very true there also. After saying that, one doesn't have to look too far for a _tiocfaidh ar la_ (our day will come) or _saoirse_ (freedom) tattoo where I come from - mostly used to make oneself look tougher than one truly is. Young men fueled by testosterone quietly flirt with it for the same reasons young men buy big knives or pretend to be Tony Soprano - it's what young men do. 
As this is a military forum, I'll offer my  :2c: from that perspective. I started my service in Ireland in the reserves (An Forsa Cosanta Aitiuil at the time) and I was in no longer than 2 hours when the company sergeant sat us down and very carefully explained that as members of the Irish Defence Forces we had more in common with Brits on the other side of the border than we did with IRA men. This was taken very seriously and the differences between a healthy nationalism and 'republicanism' were central to early indoctrination. 
People in the south remember why we have the republic - we remember Kilmainham Gaol, we remember 1916 and we sing songs about the black n' tans and Michael Collins, just as we should. But we also remember the ways in which it tore the country apart and why so many of Eires sons and daughters had to leave.


----------

