Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

J. Clarke wrote:
> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl <jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <68johfF2thkejU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>   Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 be
>>>>>>> given>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest
>>>> cover
>>>> please see:
>>>>
>>>> www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow.
>>>> About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the
>>>> birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed
>>>> by
>>>> a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly,
>>>> ash, beech, hornbeam and maple."
>>>>
>>>>>> Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting
>>>>>> of trees were the main causes of the deforestation.
>>>>
>>>> Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting?
>>>
>>> NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but
>>> also im****ted any woods for ****p building mostly from Scandinavia.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for
>>>>> charcoal
>>>>> and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
>>>>> available
>>>>> of course - but only after the forests had made room for it.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was always available...
>>>
>>> Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
>>>>> surprising that any trees survived at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Manufacturing, farming, and the
>>>>>> monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
>>>>>> causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
>>>>>> British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.
>>>>
>>>> Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
>>>> to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.
>>
>> Nonsense! : See
>> http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
>
> Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
> increased ****pbuilding was most visible in the change of Great
> Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries.
> Those who traveled across Ireland at this time re****ted that one
> could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts
> sharply with
> the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before
> (Brown, Terry)."
>
> So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense".

No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or British) 
coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood for the fleet 
against the Spanish Armada! There is NO proof of that SFAICS, and I doubt 
that it happened. How long does it take to build a war****p from wood?

>
>>>> http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/
>>>>
>>>> "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the
>>>> peak
>>>> British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
>>>> ****ps."
>>>>
>>>> and, interestingly,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html
>>>>
>>>> "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
>>>> plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
>>>> of
>>>> his expeditions."
>>
>> So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he
>> pleased. In any case, how many ****ps? Possibly two at most? Not a
>> lot
>> of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger
>> against the English?
>
> You're the one turning "British" into "English".

Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the context
it 
means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant.

>
>> After all, without England, Ireland would not
>> have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using
>> wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year
>> was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.
>
> So what did they do with the wood?

They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building ****ps 
probably.

>
>>>> "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
>>>> expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
>>>> English outposts."
>>>>
>>
>> Your source?
>>
>>>>>> Britain had more than enough
>>>>>> forests of her own to build all the ****ps she wished!!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
>>>> down
>>>> the trees of Ireland.
>>
>> Bull****. Over simplification and merely your own unsup****ted
>> opinion. See:
>> http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
>
> Which sup****ts his view, not yours.

Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above.

>
>>>>> As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from
>>>>> the Baltic countries
>>>>
>>>> What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia?
>>>>
>>>> For the ****ps that fought the Spanish Armada?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees
>>>> in
>>>> nearby Ireland?
>>>>
>>>>> - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in
>>>>> various history books.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones precisely?
>>
>> Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to!
>>
>> ROTFL
>
> You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using
> them to refute the statements of others.

Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather than
a 
carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding English a bit
more!

-- 
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

>
> --