+1. Great idea. Would you go as far back as 1912 and the 3rd Home RUle Bill and Ulster Covenant?
Insofar as those elements relate to the Easter Rising of 1916, Irish War of Independence and Irish Civil War - then I guess they would be mentioned from time to time.
I suppose it would have to start with the gun running/ militarisation plans that coincided with that.
Firstly I acknowledge the support expressed thus far for the proposal in this thread.
Debate of all these issues is important given that until 2023 we will have many important centenary celebrations. It follows then that people with any interest in these important events would wish to have a place on boards to discuss them.
The reason why I would not support the proposal is that I feel any of the 3 sub-forum suggestions can be discussed in existing forums. The creation of a series of sub-forums would allow a situation where people with an interest in the subject could end up missing a topic. For example a discussion on 1916 military executions could then take place in either the new sub-forum, or in History and Heritage. Thus I am pointing out that military history topics are obviously covered by History. We have had military history discussions on the History page in the past and perhaps the problem is that the crossover between the 2 elements is not clear enough (i.e. perhaps a military history sub forum of history is the answer?).
With regard to the rather nuanced differentiation that would then arise between political (history forum) and Military (Military sub-forum) topics, I see difficulties in how the 2 would link. I would see a situation where 1 thread may cover both a military angle and also a non-military angle to the subject. In other words the 2 are intertwined which creates a moderating problem in where such threads are located. A situation arose recently where there were discussions on a possible pardon for WWII Irish army deserters. The discussion took place legitimately in 3 places, the History and heritage page, the Military page and on the WWII sub-forum. I would be interested in the views of how the military forum moderators feel about this and also how the potential extremists (that inevitable are drawn into 1916/ WoInd. discussions) would be dealt with given the non- political correctness style of moderation on the military forum. i.e. would it be a free for all?
I would query the 3 sub-forum proposal further in terms of its limits. For example would the next step be a sub-forum for the military aspect of the 1916 rising, the military aspect of the Boer war, the military aspect of the battles of Clontarf or even less significant events such as gun running as suggested above. All are suggestions that on their own would undoubtedly have support but when taken as a whole it would seem to be superfluous. So in general I understand the suggestion and a need to acknowledge the upcoming anniversaries but I am not sure that the suggested 3 sub-fora is the solution.
My apologies for the length of this reply- I understand that this is meant to be just expressions of support or non-support for the proposal but I felt it was necessary to go into some of the reason why I would not give immediate support for this idea despite seeing value in the suggestion.
I have to disagree with you jonnie.
I love the concept of the forum being military as it gives a totally different vibe to the whole thing.
Military posting is a bit more wham-bang & clinical and less value judgement orientated on topics.
Plus, the Military forum users are more adjusted to a certain style of posting & there tends not to be a crossover and I found this on battle threads. Little discussion just facts.
It would be a shame for boards not to have this.
The dedicated '1916 Easter Rising', 'Irish War of Independence' & 'Irish Civil War' forums belong in soc-military in my view.
Alongside World War I & World War 2 & the Cold War.
These proposed forums are dedicated to indepth study of that specific period broken into the three main military aspects, from a military perspective and so clearly do not belong in the more general, 'anywhere, anytime' h&h forum.
Firstly, there's a precedent already in having sub-forums for conflicts of particular interest (WWI, WWII etc.). If your example of the Boer War were to become popular (something I would personally welcome) then yes, it ought to have its own particular sub-forum too.
Secondly, even a cursory look at books on Irish history will show that they overwhelmingly focus either on either political or military side, given the richness and diversity on both counts for the periods in question. I can't recall the last work I read that adequately covered both - and there is the matter of the tenuous connections between the political and military arms of the revolution at any time.
I don't think that keeping the purely military discussions in Soc > Mil will impact in any way on the wealth of material for H & H to chew over, and it'll spare your forum from arcane debates that'll make no sense to non-military types.
Would it be necessary to have three separate sub-forums or would it be possible to have all three topics in one subforum?
Personally I think you might be streaching it a bit thin if you divide it into three forums, especially given that the participents will be almost identical for all three.
I think that the more you examine this period the more you realise that there is easily enough subject matter to warrant a soc-mil-sub forum for each of those distinct conflicts, or phases of the overall struggle for Irish Independence if you like.
Each of those is unique enough and deserve to be examined in detail. Not all personalities were involved in each phase, considering many were killed along the way. There was a famous piece of Pro-Treaty Civil War propaganda which highlighted that some of those on the Anti-Treaty side were too young to have been involved in the Rising or War of Independence.
It's also a factor that the Rising and aftermath were events which militarised men (along with WWI) who previously had no involvement with the Irish Volunteers/ICA etc. So there is a cause and effect element and lumping them all in together does not serve the exploration from that point of view. Not all of the men involved were part of each phase. Even those who were deserve to have their actions in each examined in the correct context. I would imagine that there would of course be some overlap. In the same way a great many WW2 soldiers also had a WW1 track record.
Considering the military backdrop to the Rising, the personalities involved, & all of their individual paths to conflict in the different miltiary organisations, the ICA, IRB, IVF, IRA etc. There will be some areas of overlap between the 1916 Rising, War of Independence, Irish Civil War - one example would be the overlap between IRA men who were previously British Army trained. Those kinds of overlaps do not undermine the need for each phase to be examined on it's own merits in my view. There is a lot there really.
Consider the scope of The War of Independence, the amount of disparate events which took place during the course of the War is vast and for most people uncharted territory. The organisational structure of the Old IRA, the individual flying columns, the individual column leaders, how they communicated and co-ordinated, the major criticisms from top down and bottom up etc.
The amount of survivor's accounts and witness statements which are in the process of coming online will only add to this nitty gritty level of detail. It was more or less all over the country for years. To illustrate that point - I have read accounts of Vinny Byrne where he recalled heading home from one operation through Dublin city centre and hearing shots being fired as part of a completely different operation a couple of streets over. Considering that was one volunteer almost tripping up over other volunteer military operations by accident, I feel there is more than enough there to warrant a forum to cover that period alone.
Likewise with the Irish Civil War, there are entire aspects of that which are largely forgotten about, 'The Wexford Expeditionary force', 'The Oriel House gang', the Battle of Dublin, the Battle of Limerick, these were distinct phases in that conflict.
To illustrate this point I would direct you to Mercier Publishing, who are in the middle of a series of books called 'The Military History of the Irish Civil War' series. Bear in mind this is just one publishing house and we are still a long way from the Irish Civil War Centenary. There have also been many other War of Independence books recently republished, including the the 'Dublin/Cork/Kerry/Limerick Fighting Story' books.
This is before we even get to the more homegrown publishing efforts and other amateur ongoing research. Single ambushes have had entire books written about them in great detail and I am not just referring to Kilmichael. Unlike WW1 or WW2 in the case of Easter Rising/ Irish War of Independence /Irish Civil War there is scope for a lot more granular level of study of those events. Knocklong does not belong with Moore Street.
I'd disagree. I'd say that the military situations in each were radically different (a rebellion, a guerilla war of liberation and a civil war), as were the circumstances that the participants on the Irish side found themselves in (as Morlar points out).
If this forum was set up how would people envisage the separation of 'military history' from 'history' in this period?
Also how would it be possible to ensure that discussion is omitted in favour of pure fact (as per CDfms point 37 above) given that people of strong opinions will naturally post on topics that interest them. Anyone who frequents the military forum will know that the moderators will usually only intervene if there is a factual inaccuracy (I presume this is military discipline type situation). The point being avoidance of threads being taken over by extremists.
Discussion would not be omitted - that would be the whole point of the proposal no ?
I have not heard any concerns in this regard from the moderators of Soc-Mil.
In fact the sole user to absent himself from the entire unanimous momentum behind this proposal is yourself and for reasons that are not entirely clear.
These are military events, military conflicts we are discussing here. If you have general concerns with the standard of moderating or the moderating style on the soc-mil forum this is probably not the best avenue for those concerns.
We've not had any comment at all from the Soc-Mil mods, either here or in this thread.