"The Incomplete Conquest of Ireland by the Tudors" does well to provide a general overview of the events surrounding the Tudor involvement in Ireland during the 16th century. A descent chronology appears throughout the paper, yet it lacks a strong introduction on which to base the need for such a history lesson. While it presents a good, basic discussion on the English Tudors in Ireland, it doesn't offer an initial "why this is important" statement to entice the reader to continue. Where this paper succeeded, it succeeded well; unfortunately, where it lacked, it lacked well.
The specific facts, where they may be found, are both accurate and relative to the work. Thus, the paper possesses a certain fluidity, transitioning smoothly from one sub-topic to the next. In many cases, though, I found myself craving some bit of documented fact to support what I read. For instance, one the author writes, "In 1541, Henry VIII became King of Ireland and changed Ireland from a lordship into a kingdom (Fitzpatrick 1). Henry VIII and the Tudors brought about many changes to Ireland and enacted various laws." First, I believe the a definition of both lordship and kingdom would aid the reader in distinguishing the difference between the two and, thus, understanding the relevance of this action. Second, the second sentence make mention of "many changes . . . enacted various laws." Yes, that appears to be quite significant, especially from the Irish point of view, but what were the changes; what were the laws? I wanted to be able to understand how these changes affected the people, but I, as the reader, didn't even know what the changes were.
From the historical point I have already stated that this paper presents the facts well. Occasionally, though, it seems to de-emphasize the important ones while focusing a bit too much on the less important ones. An example of this comes in the author's discussion of Henry VIII's split with the Catholic church. To give credit, the author does call it, "[p]robably the most important act performed by Henry." The problem I have with this comes in how the author presents the effects of the division. While much attention is paid to the upperclass, the lords and wealthy land owners, virtually no notice is made of the largest segment of the population, the common segment. This religious split initiated numerous revolts across Ireland and many of the people a common bond, yet this point is never made.
Several times the author includes his/her opinion mixed in with the researched facts. While the opinion of an expert in the field could hold relevance, its manner of presentation here only works to weaken the argument. For example, "As a result, before 1603, there were no positive outcomes in the Anglicizing programs set forth by the Tudor monarchs." Define for me a positive outcome and then maybe I could agree, or at least acknowledge the legitimacy of the statement. Another example made a key error, "Edward VI failed miserably in his attempt to spread Protestantism in Ireland." By what measure did he fail miserably? A sentence such as this can only gain validity when supported with strong facts, and this one was not.
As the critic I do not intend to present this paper as being inordinately plagued with flaws.
Various phrasings and stylistic decisions appear throughout with which I disagree. As a whole,
though, this work does well to offer a clearly researched overview of a topic whose broadness
may have been an uncontrollable yet detrimental aspect from the start. I can see that the author
took the time to learn the history he/she presented.