Pre-Viking Ireland: A Political Survey (Excellent Lecture)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- Pre Viking Ireland: A Political Survey
This lecture explores Ancient and Early Medieval Ireland. It gives us a brief and broad overview of ''Celtic'' Ireland, its politics and tribal landscape while touching on Irish Paganism and the rise of Christianity in Ireland before the coming of the Viking Age.
From Roman references to the Irish Annals and Sagas or Epics we see watch as Ireland not only has an impact on Early Medieval Europe but how those impacts lasted.
Attribution: Bilkent Courses on the Web
HIST-416 Medieval British History
Asst. Prof. David E. Thornton
2009-2010- Fall
Formation of the medieval English state from its Anglo-Saxon beginnings to the 14th century, tracing the developments in central and local government, its politics, social structure and its interaction with the rest of the British Isles and the Continent.
video.bilkent.edu.tr/course_vi...
What are your thoughts on this lecture involving Pre-Viking Ireland?
Pretty good
It's a good lecture to be sure but that scrapping sound is off putting.
This is good, it outlines the divisions within Ireland which were not truly healed even by the 1169 Anglo-Norman invasion. Some people may quibble about pronunciations but many names in Gaeilge are difficult even for Irish people and there are many 'Gaelinazis' who exist solely for the chance to criticize other peoples language abilities. Thanks for sharing this Nick.
It's absolutely astonishing that he starts off by doing a racist caricature of the Irish. 'To be sure, to be sure'. That's pretty offensive
NaCreagachaDubha you’re soft in the head if that offends you...
The Tain Bo Cuailgne was not a war over a cow. Rather, it was about a bull - the Brown Bull of Cooley.
"How the Irish saved civilization" by Cahill is an excellent book on Irish monastic culture and the influence that the Irish had on Western civilization and thought before the Vikings showed up and disrupted everything. Ireland had a flourishing monastic culture a Golden Age during what was termed the dark ages in Euorpe. Irish monks praised for their skills diligently copied Greek and Latin works while they were being burned in the continent. European nobility sent their offspring to study in Ireland during this period as Ireland was the preeminent place to study. Vast trade networks beyond Europe were established. The multitude of colors used in the Book of Kelso illustrates this.
Thank you for posting this! I find all of your lectures fascinating and I learn something new with every new (shall we call it) episode. For those of us out of school (for some time now), this is not unlike continuing education. Many thanks. Dallas, TX.
good rep documentation earlier Ireland. We have a lot to learn about the Ireland before this time.
This was legit amazing.
I have enjoyed your lectures very much, I am learning a great deal about the backgrounds of my English history. Thanks
?
@@raffles7556you're upset that Irish history applies to England?
@@Dimera09 …no
@@raffles7556 care to explain what your "?" means? If not, you're strange for writing it in the first place.
What are your thoughts on the Tuatha de Danann earlier history.... There is far more ancient Irish history to be recovered.
I recommend a book by : Padraic Collum, "A Treasury of Irish Folklore'.
many other collections of irish stories were first written down, collected and published in the 19th c. before this the folk tales were an oral tradition. Douglas Hyde. I should refuse to name any more, except Yeats who collected alot as well in in Sligo in 1894 etc 1895 before he was 30, and wrote his Mythologies. Those ignorant of their own folk traditions are the only truly poor of the World.
The Welsh legends of the Mabinigion also hint at Irish interactions.
Nice lecture. Is there a follow up to this lecture?
Rod Villanueva there should be! At the end of the video a link pops up to the whole playlist and I try to upload an additional lecture once to twice a week!
A fascinating lecture! Thank you for sharing : ) I'm glad I found your channel, you definitely have a new subscriber.
History's Who Yesterday's Nation I am very happy that you found us! Stick with us because we have some awesome things coming!
Thanks, I am not a historian so this was really helpful in understanding how you do your research and formulate theories. Enjoyed it!
what about strongbow and the prendergasts etc????? they came from munster and were on the side of brian boru
Tara is the name of the mansion in "Gone with the Wind' and "Tara's theme" is the main musical motif in that movie.A bit of irrelevant information I know!
Kalo Arepo you’re not alone in knowing this, hahahaha! I feel you!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 I learnt a lot by listening to your lecture especially on the correct pronunciation of Irish place names(or rather the English rendition of Irish names.I used to pronounce names like Leinster,Munster and Meath all wrong and now I know better! Here in Australia about one third of the population has Irish ancestry so it is interesting to spot the origins of many common Irish names lke O'Neill and many many ore.There is a stream called Connaughtman's Creek about 2 hours drive from where I live.
Tara being owned by Scarlet’s O’Hara family.☘️
where do you think tara came from ? it came from ireland not the movie
@@kevindoom Yes I know about the original Tara in Ireland but the theme was composed by the chap who wrote the score for the movie!
We can edit this bit out.
* Doesn't edit that bit out.
20:15 Wait, I thought the Ui Nill take their name from Nial Glandubh.
Great, but too much extraneous noise being picked up by the mike. Really bad.
Very interesting but you shouldn't hold the mike while recording
Will Someone get this man a treadmill! I'm getting motion sickness watching this....
Honda Guru I once had a professor who had two pairs of glasses, for near and far, and he switched them off and on continually. When he did, he would often lose his place in his lecture. Oh my. It was a challenge. lol
It’s an interesting lecture, but fairly well dated now (being from 2009-10) with lots of outdated conclusions/information. Modern Y-DNA science has pretty much debunked a lot of modern scholars’ “skepticism” (which is very evident in this lecture) about the historicity of familial connections and early figures like, for example, Niall of the 9 Hostages. With the M222 Y-DNA marker now identified as being Niall’s and with the very strong prevalence of that marker in modern males of NW Ireland (i.e., the historical land of the Northern Ui Neill) it pretty much confirms the “relatedness” of these people and validates much of old Irish genealogies. The same is true for the Eoghanacta-modern Y-DNA testing has shown that a lot of these families are indeed genetically related. Proving scholars’ incessant need to call such connections “artificial” to be nothing but modern scholastic bias. Modern scholarship really has an odd arrogance about it that likes to think it’s smarter than it actually is. They are so quick now to call information that comes to us from the old sources as contrived or even mythology. When in fact, DNA science is now proving that much of the old stories have are much truer than modern scholars have thought.
That said, it does contain a lot of good information about the areas these dynasties controlled, etc., (though some of his Irish pronunciations need some work).
Yup i went to see the newgrange monument and mentioned niall who i thoughat was a legend and they confirmed the above
Thanks for saving me some time. I've noticed that in others in this series. I'm fascinated by this topic but only want the most up-to-date and scholarly content. There's a lot out of good content out there but RUclips keeps promoting rubbish and wacko "history" (which this is not). Life is too short for cheap wine and inaccurate history.
Its very easy to look back and criticise using more modern DNA evidence as proof, until that evidence became available it just makes sense to be sceptical of written sources when trying to use them to create a historical narrative. DNA evidence is very clear and factual where as written sources are full of biases, this leads historians to be largely sceptical by default, it just good historical practise. whether the family relations were artificial or real doesn't have a huge impact on the political overview he is giving. Any family connections between the ruling families would have become increasingly distant over time and they all competed with each other for control, each using the family connection as a basis for there right to rule. Without definitive evidence (at the time) from a historical/political point of view its how these connections were used that is important not necessarily whether they were true or not. The same kind of thing happens with all ruling classes and dynasties across the ancient world and right into the modern period.
His scepticism seems to be mainly, and rightly, directed at the precision of the dates. Even if scientific methods prove the 'relatedness' of these dynasties, it does not necessarily mean that all those kings mentioned are related in the exact way that the chroniclers record. Chroniclers are far from unbiased, and it seems very likely that usurpers would have tweaked the family trees.
I'm afraid it's nothing but reasonable to question ancient sources that may well be intended to create legends or big up a ruling family by providing a glorious ancestry. If more recent DNA discoveries have confirmed some of what the ancient texts say that's great, but there's nothing wrong with historians being sceptical rather than credulous in the absence of such genetic evidence, and it's quite unreasonable to suggest we should just trust the sources or that the DNA discoveries imply that.
Cuiger means fifth (province)
Tir means country
NIALL of the Nine Hostages, pronounced NIGH-ALL..
The constant scratching became so annoying I had to turn this off - which is a shame, because I was keenly interested in the lecture.
As Irish accents go, that was pretty horrific....
The microphone scratching on your shirt was to much and I couldn’t continue watching. Ugghh. Like nails down a chalk board.
Is that what it was? Sounded like somebody was munching on potato chips
just be glad they didn't get the sound engineer from penn museum!
Tuath second.t not pronounced
a very english view of ireland
In what manner?
@@dawnof-the-triffids601 He downplayed it mostly and he for some reason said the High-Kings of Ireland were fictional when the High-Kings are FACT and mentioned hundreds of times in many seperste Irish annals.
He also ignored the sucessful Irish invasions on scotland and wales which was a big thing at this time.
@@dawnof-the-triffids601 He was ignorant on the High King topic.
Apart from that it was very good, though
@@mcfcfan1870 He doesn't say all High-Kings are fictional (though the early ones listed in the annals probably are), he is saying that the title High-King was often an empty one (which most historians agree on).
@@dawnof-the-triffids601 The High Kings from 400AD to 1100AD are all factional and the ones for a couple hundred years before that are classed as "legendary".
The title was kind of empty yes but he was king nonetheless. He went as far as to say they weren't even kingd, which is very untrue and ignorant
I feel sorry for the very sensitive Irish people on here, who are offended by his Hollywood Irish accent.
I think it was in the context of what the student said, and which I cannot hear. Bad taste at worst, but definitely not racist.
A racist is a racist is a racist… and this guy is a racist.
@@aconsideredopinion7529 This man is not racist or in bad taste I'm Irish and do not get offended by stereo type's not many Irish do we are fairly based not at all like the snowflake American liberal who gets offended for someone else
Get a grip on yourself
Ye wouldn't last to long in Ireland if your sensitive because the truth would hurt your feelings
I quite like what you do but the way you butcher the Irish words is too off-putting.
You also show an amazing lack of understanding for some aspects of it. Ógham is always pronounced o-am. In earlier script there was a dot above the g which was replaced in the litriú núa (new spelling) in the 50s by an h after the letter. I learned to read and write Irish using the dots or séimhiú.
I also thought your fake Irish accent was extremely insulting, particularly in an academic environment.
@PanglossDr. Did you learn through the old Irish script ? I think replacing the seimhu with a h was a big mistake. It made Irish more confusing and difficult to learn. Much easier to recognize that a consonant with a dot on top is a different sound.
I suspect this language change was made to suit the Irish civil service who inherited English typewriters after independence. But I would be happy to be informed otherwise.
As a child of the 60s, when teaching grammar went out of fashion, I am still not quite clear when h is actually h in Irish and not a seimhu replacement.
@@fromireland8663 I learned using the old script. I have never got used to using h.
1 minute in and a major problem arises
Were the Irish even Celtic?
What has Dna shown about that
Celtic is a cultural and linguistic grouping so the answer to your question is yes.
@@raffles7556 only that part of Irish history which began around 500bc was Celtic
All the great achievements before then in that island were not Celtic
Correct?
@@wasteoftimehere ….if you are referring to the likes of Newgrange, then yes…. It’s pre Celtic Neolithic
Pre Viking Ireland was a lot like Scotland, Wales, England, Isle Of Man, And Jersey before outsiders came the people of those places were Celts or Celtic if you prefer a longer pronoun
The Highlands were Picts, not Celts, the Current Chief of Ross, before his Barronship was known as the Chief of Ross, Sir David Campbell Ross of Ross formerly of Pictland! You guys all decided Pictland disappeared as with the Picts, however the Picts disagree...
@@randyross5630 I understood that the Picts were Celts.
@@fromireland8663 well you Fancied Wrong! The Picts where pushed into Scotland by the Celts. The Celts originated around the Caucuses like so much of the present European Population, and I'm not sure how much they genetically replaced the Populations who's lands they ruled, but assumedly I'll just assume, many were converts, and the Isles, last to be converted or genetically replaced x amount, and because they were islands became the lost Celtic Hold Outs. The Romans hated the Celts, wonder if it's a long standing beef, since the Romans also migrated into Europe, so even did the Etruscans, Druids, Sycthians! Who the Scoti and the so called Black Irish come from (Spain was just a pit stop). See the Celts pushed the Picts to Scotland known as Pictland x amount later (but obviously not to the Romans), but than the Scoti and Vikings came, and the Picts were literally Crushed between the two and we're absorbed by the Scoti, and since only around 10% of Scottish People have Pictish DNA, they were basically wiped out like the Scoti Royals wrote to the Pope in the Declaration of Arbraoth, Sealed 4th by ancestor the Chief of the Great Clan Ross, the Earl of Ross (it's a Pedigree). It was my ancestor the War Master of Scotland, Chief of Clan Arias soon to be known as the Great Clan Ross, the 1st Earl of Ross Fearchar, the Son of the Priest who Destroyed the Viking Fiefdoms in and around the Highlands, greatly expanding the Earldom of Ross and taking their Gold and making who would become to be known as the Ross' the most Rich and powerful family, Clan, the Great Clan, in the Highlands second only to our Cousins the Kings! Till the War Master and Chief the 4th Earl of Ross Hugh Ross was killed in the Crusades, and by force the 1st Stuart King took a Countess Ross from her Husband and our main Titles and Claims to the Scottish and English Thrones with her! Causing a Great War! For Ross', did not except the Rape of our Countess by the Viking Blood Stuarts!
@@randyross5630 This is a load of drivel.
@@MatthewMcVeagh it's beyond Drivel it's a direct attack on the Scoti People and Scotland's History! Ireland Demands they are the Progenitors of Scotland and the Scoti, but it's pretty clear the Scoti were Invaders! Invaded North East Ireland and than the South West Highlands and North West Low Lands, the Declaration of Arbraoth sealed 4th by my Ancestor the Chief of the Great Clan Ross the Earls of Ross clearly states we are not from Ireland. It's really insulting for the Irish to openly attack the History of mee People, and you know what Turks actually do the same thing, because that's how far away from Ireland we come from! It's all well Documented, but the Irish don't Care, they are not even appropriating our culture but actually completely denying it! And I'm orginally from just outside the Greater Boston Area, filled with Irish, and I can 100% tell you, the Irish have a serious Issue with Ross'...
Very good but one MASSIVE mistake.
Ireland had a High King since the 5th century to the 12th century. These are factual kings if all of Ireland so you just cannot rule them off as fictional.
They did not have too much power and the role was most likely ceremonial at the time but you cannot deny that they were High Kings of Ireland.
Also as I saw one person comment, you didn't mention the fact Ireland was a real country at the time, unlike england or france.
Single Law, single culture and identity, single language, a High King to rule over everyone. Thats pretty much the definition of a country.
The law-tracts do not acknowledge a high king until around the end of the eighth century, but if you have any evidence of High Kings existing in the 400s I'd be interested to hear.
@@dawnof-the-triffids601Baile chuind chéitchathaig was a lost written around 700 AD and it inculded Ailill Molt in the mid 5th century to the latest high-king from late 7th century.
(Ailill Molt is known as the earliest historical High-King.)
There are mentions of "Ard Rì Na hEirean" in the Irish anals starting around 5th century but I can't get the names of the auctally annals. There isn't a list of thr High Kings until the one I mentioned in the first paragraph but multiple kings are called "High-King Of All Ireland" in the early annals. The Ulster annals being one, at least
@@joshdolan9146 Ok thanks, I'll look into it. So would you say that the 'general consensus' (from the two or three books I've read on the topic) on High Kings not existing in the fifth century is incorrect?
@@dawnof-the-triffids601 Maybe. The first high king recognised as historical is from the late 5th century so yes its likely the ones before that didn't exist.
However it still is possible that they did. We'll see if any more evidence of them are found in the future.
Excellent comment
The map of Eire looks like a koala up a gum tree with its head turned away from the tree.
Excellent Anthony…… well done….. have a lie down there for yourself now …… good man
You might have to revise, it looks like we are not celts but were there before the celts came along. New information new idea's, its great because it means we dont get fixated with race creed blood, its just history.. All your getting here is bit's and pieces of a brief time line in Ireland.
This new information only serves to solidify and deepen the “race, creed, blood” fixation , as you say.
However I feel that that is a “good thing”
You say , “it’s just history “.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard something so stupid in my whole life.
A pretty dubious overview in my opinion. Scholars might be better served elsewhere.
The DNA has now made many of the theorists obsolete .Need to take the misinformation down and move on to what we have learned in the last few years.
Im a direct descendant of my Family Sire, Niall Noígíallach with the DNA markers to prove it. In order to join my family ancestry project and be counted. I had to have it done. Very important as we are not from the bastard bloodlines. But yeah pretty amazing family lineage.
And Iam aware of his "legendary" existence. Niall is used to describe the lineage. I cant recall the Actual sire of my family, but its documented and has something to do with that story. I shold have maybe made that clear at the start but its an attention grabber. Either way, when your Scot/Irish family sends a procuring agent all the way from their to States, they are making sure that I am who I stated I was. So who and however they landed the DNA of that line, one thing is certain, I am of direct high king blood. On 2 sides of my Genealogy.
oh and not the SNp M2??? whatever. we were not a part of that scam. Anyway, I make no bones about my heritage, Just stumbled across this lecture and felt like watching..
I mean, well done? But at this far a remove literally everyone is.
This is peak yank spoofing
You and a million other people.
Typically English lecturer, can't help doing a cartoon Irish accent. And essentially wrong. The Irish are not Britons.
Both were celtic societies though, and I think that's what he's saying. As opposed to the Anglo-Saxon Germanic incomers.
'Typical English lecturer', I'll be honest this is the first time I've heard an English lecturer doing a cartoon Irish accent in my life.
Why do you call him English mo chara? Granted he has some English ancestry, but I'm not sure that makes him English. He wasn't born nor raised in England and most of his ancestors were Britons not English.
"Concept".
There was factually a High-King of Ireland. He was the most poweful petty king of the 5 provinces and was the High-King, its FACT.
Just because they arent a modern king doesnt mean that dont exist. So can I say Queen Elizebeth doesn't exist because she is just a figurehead?
There was a High-King of Ireland. There was the same laws throughout Ireland. There was the same langauge. There was the same religion and same culture.
It was indisputably a country despite the fact it had a strange political system.
You also completely ignored the Irish invason of Scotland and wales, too.
It is in no way 'indisputable' that Ireland was one country. Politically Ireland was exceptionally divided. Yes there were many cultural and linguistic similarities (just as in Germany in the before the 1870s, though that wasn't a united nation either) but the title 'High King' was seldom one that was respected by all the petty kings on the island. Even Brian Boru was not universally recognised as High King by all, and he was probably the most powerful to claim the title. Also no law-tracts acknowledge a high king until around the end of the eighth century, so many people do think the earlier High-Kings were just lists compiled in later centuries. So you can captialise FACT all you want, I'm perfectly happy with him using the word 'concept'.
He is not ignoring the invasions of Scotland and Wales, they came up in the Scotland and Wales lectures. Also, the whole High King thing is in now way indesputable. It's a thing we have no clear contemporary good sources of, so we simply can't say much about it.
@@joluoto There are around 6 annals makinh hundreds of references to the High-King. The High-King did not have much power (although the most poweful person in Ireland usually became High-King)
but he was High-King nonetheless. Is Queen Elizebeth not a queen because she cant change laws?
There is around 6 separate annals that mention the same High-Kings with all all giving the exact same account only for a couple dates and years that could vary slightly. I don't see how that isn't any good source.
@@dawnof-the-triffids601 The idea that so many sererate people would come together and all decide to compile a list of fake kings for no reason whatsoever. And get almost every single detail the same on these kings too.
Maybe you could disagree but when a place has the same langauge, religion, culture, laws and High-King, that is pretty much the definition of a country. The laws part is massive in this. The fact that all Irish people went by the same laws throughout the entire country is a massive factor.
@@mcfcfan1870 I don't understand why you cling to these lists as though they are facts. Most Irish historians consider the early High Kings to be semi-historical at best. Please mention an Irish historian who considers all the early High Kings to be real.
Who makes this person an authority ?
He is a very experienced scholar and researcher focused on the history of the middle ages largely in northwestern Europe. Google his name and Bilkent. He spent a number of years in Dublin. I’ve been bemused to learn that there is apparently interest in this history in Ankara which is in the middle of Turkey. Not where I’d expect to hear such depth about the Irish clans, the remnants of Old Norse in the Faroe Islands and other tidbits this guy provides us.
@@taylorw Ahh, youtube, where people give more credence to some guy who spent a couple of hours trawling wikipedia than a recognised professional in the field who teaches at university level.
Typically negative view of Ireland from an English WASP point of view and the mimicry at the start just shows his racist opinions which colour his ignorance.
Yes he's so racist he has studied Irish History to a far greater level than the majority of Irish people.
@L M. I don't agree. I think you are displaying your anti-English bias.
i think he is being fair and he said in another video how he spent a very long time studying ireland he had the interest more than his other english countrymen