2nd worst war for Irish?

kildarejohn · 04-12-2014 9:09pm #1

We keep hearing this year about the number of Irish casualties in WW1, and the number of Irish deaths was I think greater than in any of our own Irish rebellions.
But what was the 2nd worst war as regards Irish deaths? Could it be 1798? I suspect it might be the American Civil War, but can't seem to find any confirmation (OK, I will admit I only spent 20 min on Google).

Manach · 04-12-2014 9:25pm

As per the OP, I'd have gone for the US Civil War.
From various magazines articles (History Today) it was reckoned the Irish along with the Germans made up significant percentages of the Union armies. As well on the Confederate side, numerous Irish emigrates joined that cause.

Offhand there was at least one occasion that Irish regiments met on opposite sides in battle, Battle of Fredericksburg, this being captured in the excellent film (AFAIR)"Gods and Generals".

Jesus. · 04-12-2014 10:18pm

The Confederate and 9 year Wars would outdo the two of them, particularly when you add in disease-related casualties. Also with the scorched-earth policies, many more died of famine as a direct result.

The Williamite War might do too.

riffmongous · 05-12-2014 9:05am

The 9 years war for sure as mentioned above. I remember reading that the war with Edward de Bruce was devastating too due to famine, probably not in terms of overall deaths due to the low population base but possibly in percentage terms.. On my phone now so I can't check, will do later

ChicagoJoe · 05-12-2014 4:03pm

kildarejohn wrote: »

We keep hearing this year about the number of Irish casualties in WW1, and the number of Irish deaths was I think greater than in any of our own Irish rebellions.
But what was the 2nd worst war as regards Irish deaths? Could it be 1798? I suspect it might be the American Civil War, but can't seem to find any confirmation (OK, I will admit I only spent 20 min on Google).

The actual numbers who took part in WW1 from Ireland and died is debatable, the numbers may well have been exaggerated.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hopelessly-inaccurate-record-of-irish-wwi-dead-criticised-1.1985399

Stojkovic · 05-12-2014 4:58pm

Napoleonic Wars. ?
Crimea ?

kildarejohn · 05-12-2014 8:03pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The actual numbers who took part in WW1 from Ireland and died is debatable, the numbers may well have been exaggerated.

I appreciate numbers are disputed, but the range of estimates for WW1 seems to be 30-50k.
According to Wikipedia, 150k Irish took part in US Civil War on Union side and 20k on Confederate side, making 170k in all. Another source (civil war by numbers) quotes the overall death rate as 1 in 5, so 1/5th of 170k = 34k.
Could be all sorts of factors making these figures inaccurate, but on this basis the Irish deaths in US Civil War could actually have been worse than WW1 - why is there so little done to commemorate these Irishmen who died just 50 years before WW1?

Jesus. · 06-12-2014 1:50pm

kildarejohn wrote: »

I appreciate numbers are disputed, but the range of estimates for WW1 seems to be 30-50k.

The lower figure is probably those who died in the British Army and the higher includes the overall amount in all armies.

DarkyHughes · 06-12-2014 3:59pm

Estimates of 30 - 50K during the 1798 rising within in the space of 4 months is an extremely high number. There was around 40 significant battles & engagments and at least 10 - 15 large massacres. The Gibbet Rath massacre were the British killed 300 - 500 rebels & The Scullabogoue massacre were Irish rebels killed about 200 Loyalists are the two most infamous massacres. That must be the bloodiest war carried out on Irish soil by Irishmen anyway.

Does anybody know what the death toll was for the 1641 rebellion?

Also does anybody know how long the United Irish guerrilla campaign lasted for after the main rebellion had been crushed in September?

Jesus. · 06-12-2014 9:16pm

Michael Dwyer and his band held out in the Wicklow mountains for over five years after the 98, Darky. It was only after Emmet's failure of 1803 that he gave himself up.

1641 is a good one. Its hard to know because it turned into a war the following year so its difficult to put an end date on it. Wiki has it lasting for 7 months before a more conventional war began. For a long time they believed that up to 200,000 Protestants were slain and it wasn't until an English researcher in the 19th Century revealed that to be a load of bunkum. I think I read somewhere that a decent estimate is 20,000. Whether that was for settlers alone or including Catholics, I don't know.

I just happen to be revisiting that period now. I hadn't read about that conflict in a long time. I find this bloke's accounts of various Irish wars to be very good:

http://neverfeltbetter.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/irelands-wars-index/

DarkyHughes · 06-12-2014 9:52pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Michael Dwyer and his band held out in the Wicklow mountains for over five years after the 98, Darky. It was only after Emmet's failure of 1803 that he gave himself up.

1641 is a good one. Its hard to know because it turned into a war the following year so its difficult to put an end date on it. Wiki has it lasting for 7 months before a more conventional war began. For a long time they believed that up to 200,000 Protestants were slain and it wasn't until an English researcher in the 19th Century revealed that to be a load of bunkum. I think I read somewhere that a decent estimate is 20,000. Whether that was for settlers alone or including Catholics, I don't know.

I just happen to be revisiting that period now. I hadn't read about that conflict in a long time. I find this bloke's accounts of various Irish wars to be very good:

http://neverfeltbetter.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/irelands-wars-index/

Interesting. I always taught 1803 was a separate rebellion for some reason. So the 1798 rebellion really lasted 5 years with the guerrilla phase included.

Yes, I read that before about the 200,000 myth. Would there even have been 200,000 Protestants in Ireland in 1641?

Jesus. · 07-12-2014 12:00am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Interesting. I always taught 1803 was a separate rebellion for some reason. So the 1798 rebellion really lasted 5 years with the guerrilla phase included.

1803 was a separate rebellion because Emmet wasn't involved in the '98 rising. He was in France. The '98 rebellion effectively finished that Summer. It was just Dwyer and his men who were still running around the Wicklow hills, raiding and causing a nuisance.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Yes, I read that before about the 200,000 myth. Would there even have been 200,000 Protestants in Ireland in 1641?

Not a'tall. That's what made that figure so ludicrous.

Santa Cruz · 07-12-2014 11:30am

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The actual numbers who took part in WW1 from Ireland and died is debatable, the numbers may well have been exaggerated.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hopelessly-inaccurate-record-of-irish-wwi-dead-criticised-1.1985399

The figures have been assessed by a number of historians with access to military records, casualties lists, widow pensions applications etc. There are certain people who won't accept that of course and will try to make the Kilmichael Ambush the primary military action of the 20th century

Jesus. · 07-12-2014 2:59pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

There are certain people who won't accept that of course and will try to make the Kilmichael Ambush the primary military action of the 20th century

But of course it was. Didn't the Japanese sing "The boys of Kilmichael" when they took Singapore from the British?

ChicagoJoe · 07-12-2014 5:53pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The figures have been assessed by a number of historians with access to military records, casualties lists, widow pensions applications etc. There are certain people who won't accept that of course and will try to make the Kilmichael Ambush the primary military action of the 20th century

Yes and their are others who will try and make the Warrington or Enniskillen bomb out to be an atomic explosion on a par with Nagasaki or Dresden.

ChicagoJoe · 07-12-2014 5:57pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Estimates of 30 - 50K during the 1798 rising within in the space of 4 months is an extremely high number. There was around 40 significant battles & engagments and at least 10 - 15 large massacres. The Gibbet Rath massacre were the British killed 300 - 500 rebels & The Scullabogoue massacre were Irish rebels killed about 200 Loyalists are the two most infamous massacres. That must be the bloodiest war carried out on Irish soil by Irishmen anyway.

Does anybody know what the death toll was for the 1641 rebellion?

Also does anybody know how long the United Irish guerrilla campaign lasted for after the main rebellion had been crushed in September?

Scullabogoue has been portrayed as a sectarian massacre when the opposite is the truth. Most of the loyalists killed were Protestants but a few were Catholics, most of the Rebels were Catholics but a few Protestants. The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

Fratton Fred · 07-12-2014 9:50pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Yes and their are others who will try and make the Warrington or Enniskillen bomb out to be an atomic explosion on a par with Nagasaki or Dresden.

And those that claim they were "economic" targets.

Manach · 07-12-2014 11:35pm

On topic, based from I recall from the Sharpe novels and the book Britain Against Napoleon by Roger Knight that about 40% of the British army was Irish during the Peninsular Campaign so assuming around 50K served with a highish morality rate of 20%, this would estimate about 4K. Hence the figure would not seem to be within the magnitude of some of the earlier rebellions/insurrections.

Off topic, there is a saying: politics is local. So it might be argued is history. In that while there has always been a parochial attitude to Irish history, the events on this Island in spite of the small number of participants have impacted the social consciousness of the population as part of the national foundation story.

pedroeibar1 · 08-12-2014 12:09pm

kildarejohn wrote: »

We keep hearing this year about the number of Irish casualties in WW1, and the number of Irish deaths was I think greater than in any of our own Irish rebellions.
But what was the 2nd worst war as regards Irish deaths? Could it be 1798? I suspect it might be the American Civil War, but can't seem to find any confirmation (OK, I will admit I only spent 20 min on Google).

By far the worst conflict was that of the Cromwellian era. Also it is meaningless to use bodycount as a 'severity' indicator without measuring it against the population level at that time.

Who do you include/exclude? If your food and shelter are gone and you die of disease brought on by exposure/disease/starvation does your death count? Do you include the forced expatriation of about 50,000 soldiers followed in some cases by their families? Or those soldiers who were sent to help the Royalists in Scotland during the 1640s and died there?

Most of the deaths, including those of the English soldiery, were from disease (same in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars.) It is estimated that the population of Ireland at 1641 was between 1.5 and 2 million.

During the 1640’s,the Catholic Confederate armies lost as many as 3,000 men at Dungan’s Hill and at Knockanuss, and several thousand more at each of the battles of Liscarroll, Clones, New Ross and Bandonbridge. The Royalists lost 2,500 men at Drogheda, 3,000 at Rathmines, 2,000 at Wexford and over 3,000 at Scarriffhollis. That’s about 26,000 in direct actions alone and excludes disease. ( I read recently that almost half the sixty-odd MRCVS (vets) who died in the British Army during WW1 died of disease.)

Then you have to look at the overall death rate - the plague (bubonic) was a non-discriminatory killer when it hit Ireland in 1649 and lasted for three years. Its high impact was a result of the low resistance of a huge proportion of the population, due to homelessness and starvation following the ‘scorched earth’ policy carried out by both sides. Irish civilians were the worst affected as they were ‘bottled-up’ in the walled towns; besieging Cromwellian soldiers less so, although Ireton was among the 5,000 who died of the plague during the July-October 1651 siege at Limerick. In 1649-50 about 20,000 died in Galway and 1,300 per week were dying in Dublin when the plague hit there. Petty’s estimate that a minimum of 275,000 died of the plague is regarded as reasonable.

The population of Ireland had fallen to about 850,000 in 1652. Petty puts the population drop at more than 600k, a figure that is generally accepted as accurate, although many (e.g. Foster) go with the higher total population figure of about 2 million in 1640.

(Page 225-7 of James Scott Wheeler’s ‘Cromwell in Ireland’ give good detail on the population and death count figures.)

pedroeibar1 · 08-12-2014 1:37pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Scullabogoue has been portrayed as a sectarian massacre when the opposite is the truth. Most of the loyalists killed were Protestants but a few were Catholics, most of the Rebels were Catholics but a few Protestants. The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

Where does that information come from? Source?

Jesus. · 08-12-2014 2:44pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Where does that information come from? Source?

Word of the killing of wounded rebels after the battle of New Ross was a big factor in the Scullabogue massacre

pedroeibar1 · 08-12-2014 3:22pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Word of the killing of wounded rebels after the battle of New Ross was a big factor in the Scullabogue massacre

I know that - but ChicagoJoe has made quite a different claim and I would like to know what basis it has in history. (Most of his claims don't.....)
Murphy, the guardian of the prisoners at Scullabogue refused several times to execute them, so his earlier orders probably were given before the news of the burning of a house full of injured in New Ross reached Scullabogue. That burning possibly was the event that ignited the flame, and from later depositions it was just a few of the guards who did all the killing. Of course we rarely hear of the 'Rebels' who executed prisoners at Vinegar Hill at a rate of a few a day for several weeks.
Does not fit with what the Nationalist cadre want to ram down as history!

kildarejohn · 08-12-2014 4:13pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

The above is a nationalist view rationalising (excusing?) the massacre at Scullabogue.
If you read the contemporaneous accounts from loyalist sources regarding the Gibbet Rath massacre you will find very similar rationalising -
"the rebels at Gibbet Rath were killed as a reprisal for ongoing burning, looting and rapes", and specifically in response to the killing of Gen. Duff's nephew.
In either case, the rationalising does not justify the killing of unarmed people; but historical views of what was right or wrong may have been different.

DarkyHughes · 08-12-2014 4:13pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And those that claim they were "economic" targets.

Well Warrington or Enniskillen weren't economic targets but there was others that were around that time like the Baltic Exchange bomb which caused more financial damage than all the other bombings in NI from 1970 up to that point & the Bishopsgate bombing the following year which nearly caused as much financial damage as the Baltic Exchange one.

DarkyHughes · 08-12-2014 4:16pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Scullabogoue has been portrayed as a sectarian massacre when the opposite is the truth. Most of the loyalists killed were Protestants but a few were Catholics, most of the Rebels were Catholics but a few Protestants. The loyalists were killed as a reprisal for the ongoing burning, looting and rapes across the south east.

Well it was still pretty f*cked up what ever way you look at it. Nothing justifies the killing of unarmed civilians. The Kingsmill Massacre was in reprisal for the recent murders of Catholic civilians but it still doesn't just justify it.

DarkyHughes · 08-12-2014 4:19pm

Jesus. wrote: »

The Confederate and 9 year Wars would outdo the two of them, particularly when you add in disease-related casualties. Also with the scorched-earth policies, many more died of famine as a direct result.

The Williamite War might do too.

I was thinking of that too but there was a hell of alot of non-Irish in both William & James Armies.

Jesus. · 08-12-2014 7:10pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Of course we rarely hear of the 'Rebels' who executed prisoners at Vinegar Hill at a rate of a few a day for several weeks.

I disagree. In fact, I find modern Irish historical revisionism very much one-sided when it comes to documenting past misdeeds. Whether it be the Anglo-Irish war or 1798, the massacres and context in which they happened tend to focus on the few perpetrated by the Irish/rebels, to the amnesia of the countless atrocities committed by the Loyalists/British.

I think the bloke who posted that comment has a point. I don't believe the narrative that those executed in that barn was simply because they were Protestant. Rather it was because they were Loyalist and therefore the political enemy.............hideous and all as it was.

pedroeibar1 · 08-12-2014 8:35pm

Jesus. wrote: »

I disagree. In fact, I find modern Irish historical revisionism very much one-sided when it comes to documenting past misdeeds. Whether it be the Anglo-Irish war or 1798, the massacres and context in which they happened tend to focus on the few perpetrated by the Irish/rebels, to the amnesia of the countless atrocities committed by the Loyalists/British.

I think the bloke who posted that comment has a point. I don't believe the narrative that those executed in that barn was simply because they were Protestant. Rather it was because they were Loyalist and therefore the political enemy.............hideous and all as it was.

I agree also on bias, and suggest that the nationalist view of Irish history is just as one-sided. What went on in the 1200 – 1800 period was awful, but was the norm of that time – look at what the O’Neills did to each other, murdering heirs/nephews, mere children. Much of what is believed today as “Irish History” was created in the 19th century as nationalist political propaganda – from songs such as ‘A Nation Once Again’ (Ireland never was one to begin with, it was a territory made up of petty kings & their equally petty squabbles) to turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by the native Irish (look at what went on during the two Desmond Rebellions) and claims for e.g. by Parnell that Queen Victoria gave nothing out of her private purse (she did, and encouraged others to do so raising £200k during the Famine as pointed out on the neighbouring thread.)

All of that anti-brit cr@p is still believed as gospel by most, particularly by those in the USA. Chicago Joe spoke about looting and rape, which is another bit of daft folklore and is why I questioned him – rape as a weapon of war was never used in Ireland by any side and I still await his source.

Ireton has a terrible reputation. During the siege of Limerick in July 1651 one of the outworks was captured and about a dozen prisoners who had been promised quarter were killed. Ireton was furious on hearing of this breach of terms, released an equivalent number of prisoners and court-martialled the c.o. and ensign involved – the latter was cashiered.

Of course, if one questions the holders of these “opinions” and suggests otherwise, one is immediately jumped on as a “revisionist” rather than one who has an open mind seeking the truth.

Manach · 08-12-2014 10:30pm

On the other hand there are other points of view that hold that holding truely unbiased seeker of truth on history is impossible. The best path is to ensure that one is aware of both the role of history, as per Bendict Anderson, as a glue to ensure that builds up communities - be they nationalist or otherwise.
Personally, the British presence in Ireland had benefits but this has too be balanced (perhaps far too much to be clawed back) by drawbacks where the indiscriminate loss of life resulted during phases of their colonisation or imposing a merchantine policy that crippled Irish trade. This was in line with how the other colonial powers operated, practicing brutality in some cases and building parternships with indigenous natives (thinking here of the Spanish conquestadors as in books by Filipe Ameresto).

Jesus. · 08-12-2014 11:44pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

(Ireland never was one to begin with

To a point. I was at Brian Boru's "funeral" in Swords during the Summer (1,000th anniversary), the High King of Ireland.

She had a common language, customs, law etc and she was no more or less a nation than most other Countries we now describe as such.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Parnell that Queen Victoria gave nothing out of her private purse (she did, and encouraged others to do so raising £200k during the Famine as pointed out on the neighbouring thread.)

I never heard Parnell's claims. I don't know what Queen Victoria giving a few quid to a starving nation has to do with anything though. As if that would in anyway make up for the catastrophe that was inflicted on the Irish people. Its almost irrelevant.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

All of that anti-brit cr@p is still believed as gospel by most, particularly by those in the USA. Chicago Joe spoke about looting and rape, which is another bit of daft folklore and is why I questioned him – rape as a weapon of war was never used in Ireland by any side and I still await his source.

Of course it was! There were many depredations committed in various wars in Ireland, rape being the least of them. Regarding 1798, the Yeoman and their followers committed hideous crimes, among them torture, massacre and indeed rape. I find your claim regarding rape quite incredible to be honest.

Read any account of '98 and you'll come across such accounts, particularly in Wexford prior to the outbreak. Again, rape was the least of their terrorist activities. Thomas Packenham's "The year of Liberty" is the best work I've yet to read on the subject.

Regarding Ireton, I don't know why you've singled him out. There were huge depredations carried out by British armies throughout those wars, countless times where surrendered garrisons were massacred and thousands of civilians killed as a result of various tactics.

Can you for even one moment be serious in trying to deny such obvious facts?

You hardly need me to go digging up loads of references for you regarding events that I would expect someone on a history forum to already be acquainted with?

pedroeibar1 · 09-12-2014 12:59am

Jesus. wrote: »

To a point. I was at Brian Boru's "funeral" in Swords during the Summer (1,000th anniversary), the High King of Ireland. She had a common language, customs, law etc and she was no more or less a nation than most other Countries we now describe as such.

I’m sure you brought a spear and wore your bodice! – and that just proves my point. High King of Ireland is basically a myth, deriving from the Leabhar Gabhala, the type of nationalist propaganda I mentioned above. If I believed that nonsense I have my family tree back to Adam! Common language? Latin? Gaelic? Norman French? Yes there were ‘Brehon laws’ but they were exercised and enforced locally, not from a central jurisdiction. There was no cohesive national army or means of enforcing a national legal system or national trade rules - the basis of a structured society. Most of the petty kings raised two fingers to neighbours and continued their raiding and bickering, unable to see the bigger picture of what it took to become a nation. And your comment again illustrates that you fall into the trap of using today’s criteria to judge a past event. As for recognizing 'countries' we know today, for e.g. ‘France’ per se did not exist, but its regions were kingdoms that had a ruler that operated from a central position whose writ was law and most were multiples of the size of Ireland, a fractured and fractious place.

Jesus. wrote: »

I never heard Parnell's claims. I don't know what Queen Victoria giving a few quid to a starving nation has to do with anything though.

Shows your depth of reading, nothing I can do about that. Read more, try to spread your research over conflicting sources and compare them.

Jesus. wrote: »

……There were many depredations committed in various wars in Ireland, rape being the least of them. Regarding 1798, the Yeoman and their followers committed hideous crimes, among them torture, massacre and indeed rape. I find your claim regarding rape quite incredible to be honest. ……Read any account of '98 and you'll come across such accounts, particularly in Wexford prior to the outbreak. Again, rape was the least of their terrorist activities. ….

‘The least of their terrorist activities’ Rather confusing language. Give me one authoritative source where rape was used as a weapon of war in 1798.

Jesus. wrote: »

Regarding Ireton, I don't know why you've singled him out. There were huge depredations carried out by British armies throughout those wars, countless times where surrendered garrisons were massacred and thousands of civilians killed as a result of various tactics. ……Can you for even one moment be serious in trying to deny such obvious facts? ………..You hardly need me to go digging up loads of references for you regarding events that I would expect someone on a history forum to already be acquainted with?

Ireton is a bogeyman (if you excuse the out-of-period metaphor). I mentioned him because we were discussing the Cromwellian wars and it shows a certain level of regard for the rules of war by someone who, like Cromwell, is considered to be the devil incarnate. I’m not denying that atrocities were committed, what I said - and repeat – is that they were committed by both sides, and Irish = good and English = bad is a load of BS.

Jesus. wrote: »

You hardly need me to go digging up loads of references for you regarding events that I would expect someone on a history forum to already be acquainted with?

Not loads, but if you find just one acceptable reference it would be good ..... I’d expect anyone who claims mass rape in 1798 or any other period to substantiate their claims. Please do so.

2nd worst war for Irish?

Comments