Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 =---- |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 =---- |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 =---- |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Late Blight -- Irish Potato Famine Fungus -- Attacks U.S. Northeast Gardens And Farms Hard | Gardening | |||
Some of best tools came from Smith and Hawken Irish digging spade ****** | Gardening | |||
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides | Gardening | |||
Irish Peat | United Kingdom | |||
Irish moss | Gardening |