RIPA

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <000601c0a7f4$fa3af300$3e0a989e@eloka>, Owen Lewis
<oml@eloka.demon.co.uk> writes

>    2. For a "scholarly" and unbiased historical work, his selected
>startpoint of the final ascendancy of Protestantism in English politics is
>somewhat blinkered. The involvement of Protestantism in the history of
>English and Irish conflict is over  one hundred years older than his opening

he opens (albeit in part IV) with Sarsfield in 1691 ... but his detailed
chronology does start in 1601

>and the history of that conflict is even some four hundred years older than
>that earlier point. Also, no study of conflict in Ireland is complete, let
>alone definitive, without explanation of events leading to the grant of
>Ireland to the Angevin crown, upon the marriage of Eleanor to the Norman,
>Henry II. 

he briefly covers the role of Adrian IV - but fails to mention Eleanor

>It is not the common knowledge it should be among those who
>pontificate on the history of Anglo-Irish affairs that Ireland was granted
>England and not taken by conquest. There may have been a scholarly study of
>the period of Irish history from about 800 to 1142 but, if there is such, I
>have not had the good fortune to read it. Though the history of continual
>conflict in Ireland certainly predates the year 800, that approximate time
>is the watershed (death of Brian Boru in 823?) that marked the divergence of
>the theretofore similar roads of England and Ireland, England towards
>statehood and Ireland to something else for another 1200 years. To start a
>study of Anglo-Irish conflict with William III's campaign is about as
>sensible and balanced as to start a study of Franco-German conflict with the
>30 Years War. 

As I read the book (and I admit to a little bias in my comments since
the flyleaf of my copy is signed) the focus is really on events from
1968 onward - but the earlier material is included because of the locals
penchant for explaining current actions in terms of earlier events.

The Franco-German equivalent would be to describe the World Wars and to
start from 1815, since one cannot consider the events of 1914 without
considering what happened in 1870 - and the roots of that were sown 55
years earlier. I don't think events in previous centuries had any real
effect on military strategies in the 20th.

I suppose one ought to try and make this on topic for UKCrypto :) There
is no mention, that I recall, of any crypto in Geraghty's book.. which
suggests to me that the coverage of the 90s may need to be completely
rewritten at some time to cover what was or was not being read.

The repeat of "The World at War" on BBC2 is interesting to see how
events we now know to have been significantly influenced by Ultra are
explained - though the effect at Midway was known (from just three days
later in some US papers!) because of the breaking of JN25 - and this was
made clear in last week's programme.

- -- 
richard @ highwayman . com                       "Nothing seems the same
                          Still you never see the change from day to day
                                And no-one notices the customs slip away"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBOqg5YhfnRQV/feRLEQJppwCZASjm45aHaIsO5UTw0qmqKZz9zjEAn1d6
VgibfGYEbwPq+WxVEMXhHfyG
=duGW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----