In article , Féachadóir
Féach@d.óir wrote:

Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because no
new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly nibbled to
death.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

In article ,
Féachadóir Féach@d.óir wrote:
Scríobh jl :
In article , Féachadóir
Féach@d.óir wrote:

Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because
no new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly
nibbled to death.

The Olde Irish favoured cattle.

I suspect they favoured cattle - but a lot of the mountains here will
support nothing but sheep or goats.

I suspect that only the rich and powerful - those that could afford bards,
for instance - could also afford cattle. Mind you, cattle in those days
were tough and small beasts. It's only since the mid 18th century that the
meat of cattle fetched more money than the skins.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

"Someone else" wrote in message On Sun,
11 May 2008 16:23:31 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl


I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the
british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships.

I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period
because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage
done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation
of Ireland...

You answer questions not asked and make
repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never
there in the first place.

In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you
are
answering a question that were NEVER asked.

Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that?

viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..."

You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been
asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was
not
asked.

Ah well...you're just going to have to cope then aren't you?

And here was I thinking you were actually serious about having an interest
in Ireland and Irish history and just had problems presenting information in
a sensible and ordered fashion. I was wrong on the former but was right on
the latter, but then that is a typical tactic of a troll.

Sometimes I enjoy playing with trolls but I've decided that life is too
short to bother with you.

"Féachadóir" Féach@d.óir wrote in message
...
Scríobh "allan connochie" :

"jl" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

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.

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.

Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that whatever
deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was
deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of
Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the
need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the
last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be
guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was down
to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different
but
surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that
different from Britain at that time?

Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

That may be so but then again the more pastoral regions of Britain were just
as treeeless as anywhere else. My own area in the Southern Uplands of
Scotland for example! It may be as I said a matter of degree and you may
indeed be right in that 11thC or 16thC Ireland may have had a larger
fraction of its original forest intact, but what I was saying was that
surely this was only a fraction of what had been? Iron Age and first
millenium Ireland couldn't have been so much different from Britain - could
it? I know it is only one poster sayig it but the idea that a huge primeval
forest covered Ireland until Elizabeth of England cut it down to build a few
ships to ward off the Armada sounds a bit off.


Allan

On May 11, 5:26 am, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Salahoona" wrote in message

If you

use Eucl. Viminalis; plant them only a foot apart and in a group. They
will support each other in the wind (groups of two metres diameter)
and when the trunks are about eight inches wide they can be harvested.
Paint the cut on the living trunks with oil and they will sprout
again:

I can't think of a eucalypt that doesn't resprout if the trunk is cut right
off . I don't think there is really any need to paint with oil.

Sure. But I have other trees and use a mixture of linseed oil with a
cheap tin of rooting compound mixed in. I do the same even for osier
willow. I'd rather make sure that no disease gets a foot hold and it
is my nature to be gentle and kind with plants.

I do have a plum tree where the leaves get full of holes in an area
where lots of sloe grow. I'd rather destroy a plant which needs
insecticide to live.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:34:12 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "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
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".

Reread what you've just posted.

What do you think I'm going to find there?

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.

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....

Estates were given to him by the Queen. I'm sorry, but Raleigh didn't
"conquer" them. If you have a problem it's with the Queen, not with
Raleigh.

Raleigh, Queen...both part of the English ruling class...I have a
problem with the both of them.

In any case, how many ships?

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.

What does 1588 have to do with anything?

That was the time of the battle against the Spanish Armada and the
time that Ireland was substantially deforested...do try to keep up.

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. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/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 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.

Right.

Amusing that.

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 =----

On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:41:49 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:40:29 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
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

At that reference it says:

"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)."

Brown, Terry. "Wood in Development of Civilization."
[http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fo...velopment.pdf]

Which supports my allegation that Ireland was rapidly deforested
during the time that Britain invaded and occupied.

Game, set and match Mr Merrick.

I made that same comment

No you didn't.

and you told me to "reread what I had posted". Are you by any chance a loon?

You're the one claiming to have made certain specific comments when
you did not...nowhere did you say, "Game, set and match Mr Merrick" or
even, more charitably, "Game, set and match"

Have a nice day
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 =----

On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:39:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:55:43 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
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



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,

Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the
conquest
and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount
of
resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the
English. You may have heard about it.

The crime of taking property using force is, in law, called
'aggravated robbery'. Furthermore, the passing of time makes that
property no less stolen.

So you're saying that the Normans should give England back to the
Anglo Saxons?

cough

Practical difficulties there...rather obvious ones.

Tell me though, are there still Norman Soldiers present on English
soil?

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 =----

In article ,
Someone else wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:39:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Tell me though, are there still Norman Soldiers present on English
soil?

I have personally met at least two soldiers on English soil called Norman.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

On May 11, 3:03 pm, jl wrote:
In article , Féachadóir

Féach@d.óir wrote:
Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because no
new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly nibbled to
death.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

My experience too. I had a small herd of goats when I was a teenager
and let them into the orchard to eat the grass. After a week, they had
eaten the bark off the trees. It was such a disaster that I didn't
even get into trouble. Goats are the most contrary animal I have ever
known.

Donal

On May 11, 8:34 pm, jl wrote:
In article ,
Féachadóir Féach@d.óir wrote:

Scríobh jl :
In article , Féachadóir
Féach@d.óir wrote:

Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because
no new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly
nibbled to death.
The Olde Irish favoured cattle.

I suspect they favoured cattle - but a lot of the mountains here will
support nothing but sheep or goats.

I suspect that only the rich and powerful - those that could afford bards,
for instance - could also afford cattle. Mind you, cattle in those days
were tough and small beasts. It's only since the mid 18th century that the
meat of cattle fetched more money than the skins.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

No fridges in those days. Anyway, I lived in such a culture and
cannot remember eating 'meat' - lots of milk and butter though - salt
port was the big treat. I cannot agree your presumption that only the
rich and powerful could afford cattle; perhaps a political pre-
conception on your part. Every family had a cow.

There was an old couple who lived in a remote spot and had no
children. The Man of the house died and the Woman of the house made a
decision. She abandoned the holding and wandered the road with the
cow. She would visit her extended family in turn where the cow grazed
and gave milk. I'd like to write a full account of it as Ban Aon Bho -
much as I dislike speaking Gaelic in Christian Irish. I heard the
story from people who knew her and were young kids at the time.

Donal

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
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.

So, laughter, are you telling me that the British overlords of
Ireland didn't use any of the forests of Ireland for their own ship
building?

Of course not. I am merely stating that you cannot b;lame the English for
the deforestation. They only were to blame in a small way. See Allan
Connanchie's post whci says much the same, Quote: " 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.

Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that whatever
deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was
deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of
Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the
need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the
last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be
guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was down
to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different but
surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that
different from Britain at that time?

http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_loss.htm

- UNquote.

So, the deforestation of Ireland was due to natural causes and actually
started centuruies earlier than any English occupation.


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.

Yes, but not completely.

How so?


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.

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."

"He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his
expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in
English outposts."

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.

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?

Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his
point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing
hot air.

Hal has done nothing else than blow hot air. Regulars of SCI have long
ago come to this conclusion.

I am in very good company here then, since your own efforts have been far
from well received and are definately hot air!. Ignorance is as ignorance
does!

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

In article
,
Salahoona wrote:


No fridges in those days. Anyway, I lived in such a culture and
cannot remember eating 'meat' - lots of milk and butter though - salt
port was the big treat. I cannot agree your presumption that only the
rich and powerful could afford cattle; perhaps a political pre-
conception on your part. Every family had a cow.

Agreed - generally for milk and butter. As there usually was no fodder
available for winter, most cattle were slaughtered and the meat was
salted. After a while it had a terrible taste and spices were used to
disguise this - hence the spice trade and the outrageous sums charged for
spices, which generally only the better off could afford. Only with the
introduction of root vegetables - turnips and the like - was it possibly
to winter cattle - which put an end to the high profit margins of the
spice trade.

There was an old couple who lived in a remote spot and had no
children. The Man of the house died and the Woman of the house made a
decision. She abandoned the holding and wandered the road with the
cow. She would visit her extended family in turn where the cow grazed
and gave milk. I'd like to write a full account of it as Ban Aon Bho -
much as I dislike speaking Gaelic in Christian Irish. I heard the
story from people who knew her and were young kids at the time.

Interesting tale.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

On May 12, 11:00 am, jl wrote:
In article
,
Salahoona wrote:



No fridges in those days. Anyway, I lived in such a culture and
cannot remember eating 'meat' - lots of milk and butter though - salt
port was the big treat. I cannot agree your presumption that only the
rich and powerful could afford cattle; perhaps a political pre-
conception on your part. Every family had a cow.

Agreed - generally for milk and butter. As there usually was no fodder
available for winter, most cattle were slaughtered and the meat was
salted.

I hesitate to agree with that. Cattle were also central heating and a
lot cheaper than going to the bog for wet turf in the winter Cow in
the house is no stranger to me.

After a while it had a terrible taste and spices were used to
disguise this

I'm a bigot, but for most people, except the Christian Ascendency,
didn't use spice.
..
- hence the spice trade and the outrageous sums charged for
spices, which generally only the better off could afford. Only with the
introduction of root vegetables - turnips and the like - was it possibly
to winter cattle - which put an end to the high profit margins of the
spice trade.

Well, some of us survived the famine.

There was an old couple who lived in a remote spot and had no
children. The Man of the house died and the Woman of the house made a
decision. She abandoned the holding and wandered the road with the
cow. She would visit her extended family in turn where the cow grazed
and gave milk. I'd like to write a full account of it as Ban Aon Bho -
much as I dislike speaking Gaelic in Christian Irish. I heard the
story from people who knew her and were young kids at the time.

Interesting tale.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

Donal

Someone else wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 05:34:12 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "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

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".

Reread what you've just posted.

What do you think I'm going to find there?

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.

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....

Estates were given to him by the Queen. I'm sorry, but Raleigh
didn't "conquer" them. If you have a problem it's with the Queen,
not with Raleigh.

Raleigh, Queen...both part of the English ruling class...I have a
problem with the both of them.

In any case, how many ships?

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.

What does 1588 have to do with anything?

That was the time of the battle against the Spanish Armada and the
time that Ireland was substantially deforested...do try to keep up.

And you have a source with that date for the deforestation?

If the entirety of the British Isles was deforested in 1588 then where
did they get the lumber to fight Napoleon? Had it all grown back plus
much more in 200 years?

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. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/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 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.

Right.

Amusing that.

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
=----

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)