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?


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

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 Mon, 12 May 2008 07:24:31 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote:

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.

cackle

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 =----

Someone else wrote:
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?

Of course there are. They're called the "British Army".

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