Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl
wrote:
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall 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 imported any woods for ship 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/...restation.html
Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of
increased shipbuilding 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 reported 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".
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
ships."
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 ships? 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".
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?
"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 ships she wished!!
Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut
down
the trees of Ireland.
Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported
opinion. See:
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html
Which supports his view, not yours.
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 ships 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.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)