Talk:Military history of Ireland

State

Due to the discussions around Military History of the British Isles, wasn't the main crux of the argument that the military history articles should be around a single country not around a larger geographical area? With that in mind should this just be about the military history of Ireland (state) and not include Northern Ireland (since Ireland (state) has never gone to war with NI.) Canterbury Tail talk 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be quite a narrow article. Would you then split it up to have distinct articles on the Military history of the Kingdom of Ireland, Military history of the Lordship of Ireland, Military history of Gaelic Ireland? A "military history of Ireland" is normally about the entire country (in the traditional sense) - indeed it would need to be to properly understand it - not merely 1922+ ... or with a black hole between the years 1801 and 1922 with partial service resumed thereafter. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be about the military history of the island not the state. The idea was if we had an article on military history of the British isles which covered everything then there could be military history of Ireland for the current sovereign state. As thats not been accepted, there is no way this article can be just about the sovereign state, the island and its fully history must take priority but its going to make it much harder to word the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how the whole island has such an intertwined history, it would make sense to include conflicts on the whole island and not just restrict this to the state of Eire post-1922. The restriction of Military history of the United Kingdom to post-Union needn't be repeated here. Fences and windows (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Excluding The Troubles would make sense though, other than any military involvement Ireland may have had. Fences and windows (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean about the Troubles - for the most part the "military" is the British military, not the Irish military ... but then aren't you excluding every rising/rebellion post the Jacobite war until the establishment of the Free State Army? Secret societies/paramilitaries/terrorism are an important part of military history of Ireland. We can't just ignore it (but got knows I don't want it to dominate it either!). We don't need to - and shouldn't - discuss the civil rights issues, just he plain military aspects of it all e.g. Proxy bombs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Well, if this is the solution (i.e., splitting the former Military History of the British Isles into MH of Britaon and MH of Ireland) that's been "agreed" at MHotBI then the logical thing to do is to cover the island, not just the state. Bastun^nutsaB 09:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have no issues with that whatsoever, it was just a question. If this is the case then we need to be clearer in the ambiguous uses of Ireland, state etc in the article so we know which it is talking about at each point in history as they will change with the timeline. Canterbury Tail talk 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that The Troubles is the post-60s violence in Northern Ireland; anything pre-'22 in Ulster can be covered in this article. Fences and windows (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At least it's a hard and fast rule. I can see sense behind it. I wouldn't be in favour, but let's see what others think. (BTW is it hard and fast, nothing in NI post '22? Would you see the Belfast Blitz, soldiers training in NI, etc. during WW2 covered by this rule?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion so far. Anything in NI post-22 should already be covered in Military history of the United Kingdom, but if editors want to include it here too I won't mind, we just need to decide whether to. Fences and windows (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK for now, let's concentrate on building up pre-1922 C32 and post-1922 C26 ... and just see where it goes from there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence

"The military history of Ireland for centuries has been dominated by the struggle for independence from England and later the United Kingdom." While true, it is only so from the 17th century onwards, and ignores all the other military activities that occoured long before the English came here. It is a dominant subject, true, but it ignores the centuries of inter-dynastic and inter-kingdom warfare. Not to mention civil wars. So maybe that first paragraph could reflect this. Fergananim (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article at present is only just a brain dump tidied around the edges by some good editors. The inter-dynastic stuff (including the Ireland-Scotland stuff) needs to be written (I know precious little about it) - I would disagree that it's only been since the 17th century that England and Ireland have really been warring ... the Norman conquest (yes, from the continent but it was the English Crown) and the Gaelic push back over the next few centuries is just as important as the big wars of the 17th century.

Please add what you can on the intra-dynastic wars. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing

Added refs and information, added sections and links. Organised and partially rewrote to standard.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313105450/http://archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313105450/http://archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to return back to 16 June 2022

This page is currently terrible and it was decent prior to the removal of most information in 16 June 2022. We can bring back most of the information and then proceed to find sources instead of leaving the page as it is now. Joshua D. Muthi (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)