On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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".
Reread what you've just posted.
>>>> 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.
Only in the sense of a 'Conqueror's right'...of course stolen property
remains stolen property even if it was taken as the spoils of war and
in no way guarantees that that property will remain in their
control....
>> In any case, how many ****ps?
No idea.
>> Possibly two at most?
How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have?
>> Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a
begrudger
>> against the English?
I begrudge them their invasion and occupation of Ireland. It has
stunted Ireland's development as a sovereign nation for
centuries...happily this is finally coming to an end...
>You're the one turning "British" into "English".
People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was only
England and not Britain that was doing the fighting.
>> After all, without England, Ireland would not
>> have progressed past the Iron age.
Ireland has
>> Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that?
Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene
steel...
>>The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year
>> was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.
I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for that
claim.
>So what did they do with the wood?
>
>>>> "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
>>>> expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
>>>> English outposts."
>>
>> Your source?
http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html
Bibliography
1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974
2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press
Publishers, New York,1969
3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes
and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990
4. www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/pages/woodbury/raleigh.html
Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton
5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing,
New York, 1990
>>>>>> 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.
Right.
>>>>> 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.
Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who has
no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad but
true.
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
|
