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: same as Salix Viminalis (Osier Willow). Tree Lupin is sown by aircraft in some parts of the world and their roots go sown about twenty feet (stops soil erosion) - also Spanish Broom and Tree Lupin are legumes and produce nitrogen.
well spotted that man!! It makes a change from blaming the Brits (apart from Gavin Bailey who himself almost certainly chopped down several large native trees).
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".
You're the one turning "British" into "English".
So what did they do with the wood?
You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others.
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.
No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or British) coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood for the fleet against the Spanish Armada! There is NO proof of that SFAICS, and I doubt that it happened. How long does it take to build a warship from wood?
Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the context it means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant.
They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building ships probably.
Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above.
Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather than a carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding English a bit more!
I once knew a tweaker who talked like you. Perhaps you may care to take a look look at Jochem's website before you go and make too much of a fool of yerself;-)
Hang on, I've gotta get some beer and crisps. Battling citations, I never. But that was a point blank question about "Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books.
I missed the original question. Which ones: I've recently made a study of English history in the 19th century and the various books - amongst others, include the journals of Mrs Arbuthnot, the journals of Charles Greville, gleanings of the journals of his brother, letters by the Duke of Wellington and various histories of the period. The subject was so important that it cropped up every once in a while.
At that time only Prussia, Scandinavia, Russia and other Baltic countries who still had large parts of the original Northern forest to harvest, could supply the huge needs of a big fleet. Not to mention all the charcoal you needed in order to make bronze for the guns.
I will not read them all again and give page and line number - it was hard work reading them all in the first place!
You're being picky. Not just the Spanish Armada, but the French Navy and everything in between. Britain was a naval power. To do that they needed a navy. To get a navy when the only way you know to build ships is to cut down trees, you cut down trees.
What difference does it make how long it takes to build a ship? Great Britain built thousands of them.
May mean it to you, but it doesn't to a Scot or a Welshman.
So how much did they use for each purpose, and what did they make with the iron?
I read what you wrote and your source does not support it.
You haven't posted "the entire source", you've posted a link. If you think that it supports your view then find quotations from it that do so.
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?
I didn't see him do it, though it is very likely, I would imagine he lingered at it, you know the way those crazy pepole in Oregon tie you to a tree before they do something that has the FBI web-site falling over? Well I reckon it was like that, a difficult to understand type of thing.
I know and therefore wonder why you can now read what I wrote originally and have no trouble with it, but couldn't do so the first time you read it.
Indeed.
You didn't.
Indeed you didn't claim that, but attempting to shift the goal posts doesn't invalidate my point. You claimed that it was 150 years between the arrival of the potato and the 1840s famine. That is not correct.
when linked together. I try to be quite precise in what I write and your interpretation of what I wrote is not what I wrote.
Also the existence of a census is not the only way that population growth is assessed. If you do not know about the growth of the Irish population in the latter half of the 18th century then I suggest you use google.
Not on the basis of anything you have written.
Fair point and I stand corrected.
No, really I shouldn't have. I was aware that some Irish Nationalist would come out of the woodwork at some stage and rave on about irrelevancies. They always do. And you did.
If you have managed to get to this conclusion, you must finally begin to see my original point. I will remind you that my original point and which seemed to result in your posting of irrelevancies. My point was: "you can't grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so."
Another irrelevancy?
You shouldn't say that because to do so based on a total lack of evidence based on anything I have so far posted in this thread makes you sound even less logical and unable to read for comprehension than you have to this point.
Well given the paucity of skills I've seen amongst recent graduates, that doesn't surprise me. It saddens me that Lecturers and Tutors seem prepared to accept intellecual sloth and sloppy thinking from their students, but it doesn't surprise me.
No. We will do the reverse. YOU indicate using formal logic how you reached the conclusion that: "You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much about the natural and human history of Ireland."
And you can continue to wait. You drew a conclusion based on an incorrect understanding of what I wrote therefore it is up to you to do the work. Not me. I am not your mother or one of your lecturers.
No it doesn't but then I never claimed that it did. I wrote that comment in response to your conclusion that I knew nothing about the natural or human history of Ireland.
You could not logically reach such a conclusion based on the scarce information I presented in my initial post in this thread.
Because I KNOW how it brings rabid, raving nutters out of the woodwork. And you did come.
LOL. And I'll bet you don't appreciate the irony of that statement! A nice case of pot, kettle, black.
The infestations of the
So far the prejudices in this thread have been displayed by you in truck loads.
I was not the one to introduce them and very deliberately avoided doing so. YOU were the one to introduce them and you have continued to do so.
I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage. Perhaps when you become an adult.
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....
No idea.
How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have?
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...
People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was only England and not Britain that was doing the fighting.
Ireland has
Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene steel...
I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for that claim.
formatting link
Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974
Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press Publishers, New York,1969
Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990
formatting link
Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton
Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing, New York, 1990
Right.
Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who has no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad but true.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.