Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

WW1 Irish soldiers and Easter Rising 1916

  • 05-08-2014 12:23pm
    #1
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,647 ✭✭✭


    I'm looking for some information about the connection between Irish soldiers serving in WW1 and the Easter 1916 Rising.

    Did any Irish soldiers refuse to fight at the front?
    Were any executed?
    Was there a sense of betrayal by the actions of the republicans back in Ireland?
    Cheers.


Comments

  • #2
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    There was a mixed response.

    But to understand the reaction to 1916 you need to understand the full spectrum of events between 1914 when World War I began and 1923 when the Civil War in Ireland ended.

    First of all the first men to respond to the Rising were the men of the Irish garrison in Ireland who were rushed to Dublin City Centre to fight the rebels. There were Trinity students who were undergoing military training who defended the college from the rebels and traded fire with rebels across the rooftops. Artillery was brought up to Dublin from barracks down the country to shell the rebel positions. When some of the Irish rebels were captured in their strange green uniforms there are stories of the Irishmen in British uniform asking them if they were Germans. A number of the British soldiers who committed atrocities against innocent civilians were Anglo-Irish born in Ireland.

    One British officer was on a date in St. Stephen's Green with his girl when he was held up at gun point by some of the girls under the command of Countess Markievic. They took him to the summer house in the park and gave him tea and buns while they debated shooting him. The resourceful officer took a shine to some of the girls and ended up kissing a few of them before the Countess flew into a fury at the hussies!

    The men who joined up for a variety of reasons.
    The majority of the enlisted men were workmen who joined up to feed their families, middle class educated men joined for Home Rule and the upper class for King and Country. So the enlisted men would have been bewildered at the news of the 1916 rebellion not knowing or caring really what the war was about and probably wondering why the hell there was fighting Dublin. The educated middle class men and upper classes would have felt stabbed in the back for certain.
    A few advanced nationalists in the ranks would have certainly mutinied but faced with court martial and being shot would have backed down if they knew what was good for them.
    As soon as many men with republican sentiments got home on leave they deserted.

    At home the majority of Irish republican militants were middle class farmers' sons who had farms coming to them and were shy about joining up and ultimately did not join up and depended on men like Tom Barry who fought in Iraq and returned home only to be enraged to see Black and Tans shooting his friends to show them how to use rifles and grenades and fight in an organized fashion.

    The majority of war veterans when they came home voted for Sinn Féin in 1918 like their fellow Irishmen and like their fellow Irishmen kept their heads down during the Irish War of Independence while a militant IRA minority took on the British. Some veterans would have assisted the Tans because they were targeted as suspected spies by the IRA or actually joined the Tans again for money.
    A few upper class veterans who fought for Home Rule or King and Country in the war ended up supporting the IRA.

    In 1920 a number of Irishmen serving with the Connaught Rangers in India mutinied after they were angered by British atrocities in Ireland and one man J.J. Daly was executed.

    However recruitment into the British Army even in Co. Cork one of the most violent counties in Ireland remained high with thousands of men joining up. Meanwhile in the ranks of the IRA who were actually active in fighting there were only a few thousand. Thousands later claimed IRA pensions who sat back and did nothing.

    When the Free State Army was set up and the Irish regiments of the British Army in Ireland were disbanded thousands of men simply changed uniform from brown khaki to green khaki. In fact many of the Irish uniforms were simply dyed green. They used the same kit and rifles and barracks their regiments had been based in and merged with untrained ex-IRA men who took the Pro-Treaty side. The Civil War was their chance to get revenge against the IRA - the majority of the IRA went against the Treaty - who had been tormenting them during the War of Independence.

    When the Civil War was over in Ireland the majority of British Army veterans and IRA veterans on both sides of the Treaty emigrated on the same steamers for America and Britain.

    I hope that long winded explanations helps? :D


  • #3
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Quality explanation given there by Azwaldo.

    I would just say that perhaps he meant the Pro-Treaty side here: "merged with untrained ex-IRA men who took the Anti-Treaty side" :)


  • #4
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    In 1920 a number of Irishmen serving with the Connaught Rangers in India mutinied after they were angered by British atrocities in Ireland and one man J.J. Daly was executed.

    as well as a number of Englishmen.


  • #5
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    When the Free State Army was set up and the Irish regiments of the British Army in Ireland were disbanded thousands of men simply changed uniform from brown khaki to green khaki. In fact many of the Irish uniforms were simply dyed green. They used the same kit and rifles and barracks their regiments had been based in and merged with untrained ex-IRA men who took the Pro-Treaty side. The Civil War was their chance to get revenge against the IRA - the majority of the IRA went against the Treaty - who had been tormenting them during the War of Independence.

    a bit confused here. Are you saying that men from the RDF, Leinsters, Connaught Rangers etc left the British Army, joined the National Army and then sought revenge against the anti-treaty men?


  • #6
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    a bit confused here. Are you saying that men from the RDF, Leinsters, Connaught Rangers etc left the British Army, joined the National Army and then sought revenge against the anti-treaty men?

    Yes they did. The Free State Army was tens of thousands strong by 1923. The overwhelming majority of those men were World War I veterans and men who got new employment by the Free State after their old units were disbanded.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    as well as a number of Englishmen.

    Oswald Mosley MP, a former British soldier and the future British fascist leader, opposed the Black and Tan campaign in Ireland.


  • #8
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    Yes they did. The Free State Army was tens of thousands strong by 1923. The overwhelming majority of those men were World War I veterans and men who got new employment by the Free State after their old units were disbanded.

    I don't want to start another "When is an army an army" style debate but when is a mercenary a mercenary? :D


  • #9
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I don't want to start another "When is an army an army" style debate but when is a mercenary a mercenary? :D

    Well an army is just a job at the end of the day. For the majority of people who fight in all wars the army is a home, a job and adventure and a means to prove their manhood. When an army is not fighting and not taking part in wars some individuals want to go where the action is and become mercenaries because they are professional soldiers.


  • #10
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    Yes they did. The Free State Army was tens of thousands strong by 1923. The overwhelming majority of those men were World War I veterans and men who got new employment by the Free State after their old units were disbanded.

    sorry, still confused. Did ex-RDF, ex-Leinsters, ex_Connaught Rangers join the National Army with a view to seek revenge on anti-treaty men?

    I'm aware that ex soldiers from a wide variety of British regiments joined the National Army. It's the revenge bit I'm not sure about and specifically men from the disbanded Irish regiments.


  • #11
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    sorry, still confused. Did ex-RDF, ex-Leinsters, ex_Connaught Rangers join the National Army with a view to seek revenge on anti-treaty men?

    I'm aware that ex soldiers from a wide variety of British regiments joined the National Army. It's the revenge bit I'm not sure about and specifically men from the disbanded Irish regiments.

    The Free State was Home Rule in all but name.
    Most Irish Parliamentary Party supporters simply changed clothing and became Sinn Féin members while many MPs became TDs and Lords became Senators.
    Many RIC men and G men became Gardaí and Special Branch detectives.
    Judges who served under the crown now served under the harp.
    In the same way men who were professional soldiers in the British Army offered their expertise to the Free State Army.
    You bet they got revenge on the IRA of whom several thousand were killed, 77 were officially executed and others "persuaded" after they were let out of prison to board a steamer for the New World and not to come back if they knew what was good for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    Oswald Mosley MP, a former British soldier and the future British fascist leader, opposed the Black and Tan campaign in Ireland.

    Not sure that he was in India taking part in the Connaught Rangers mutiny though.

    A couple of English soldiers did take part. The last mutineer still buried in India is English. Sgt Woods, a Bristol man with no links to Ireland other than time with the Leinsters and then the Connaught Rangers, spent quite a bit of time in Dartmoor prison after his court martial in India. Forfeited his campaign medals and Military Medal.


  • #13
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    There was a mixed response. I hope that long winded explanations helps? :D

    As brilliant as it is, I don't think this response actually addressed the question.


  • #14
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    The Free State was Home Rule in all but name.
    Most Irish Parliamentary Party supporters simply changed clothing and became Sinn Féin members while many MPs became TDs and Lords became Senators.
    Many RIC men and G men became Gardaí and Special Branch detectives.
    Judges who served under the crown now served under the harp.
    In the same way men who were professional soldiers in the British Army offered their expertise to the Free State Army.
    You bet they got revenge on the IRA of whom several thousand were killed, 77 were officially executed and others "persuaded" after they were let out of prison to board a steamer for the New World and not to come back if they knew what was good for them.

    could you cite examples of specific RDF, Leinster, Connaught who joined the National Army and sought revenge? No Irish battalion was stationed in Ireland during the War of Independence so I'm interested in understanding the torment they suffered and the revenge that they sought.


  • #15
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    No matter what, the current Government has granted amnesty to Irish Soldiers who fought for the British, technical deserters.

    Move on.


  • #16
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    beggars_bush wrote: »
    I'm looking for some information about the connection between Irish soldiers serving in WW1 and the Easter 1916 Rising.

    Did any Irish soldiers refuse to fight at the front?
    Were any executed?
    Was there a sense of betrayal by the actions of the republicans back in Ireland?
    Cheers.

    not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. So far I've only seen 2 references to named soldiers who allegedly took part in the Rising with the rebels:

    http://johnny-doyle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/easter-rising-pte-t-parker.html

    Would be interested to know if any more are known - there have been suggestions that some RDF men fought with the rebels but no names seem to be available to confirm this.


  • #17
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    Not sure that he was in India taking part in the Connaught Rangers mutiny though.

    A couple of English soldiers did take part. The last mutineer still buried in India is English. Sgt Woods, a Bristol man with no links to Ireland other than time with the Leinsters and then the Connaught Rangers, spent quite a bit of time in Dartmoor prison after his court martial in India. Forfeited his campaign medals and Military Medal.

    Mosley harangued Lloyd George in the House of Commons. He wasn't the in the army at the time because he was elected in the 1918 election. I was simply giving an example of men who served in the British military and who were members of the British establishment opposing British policy in Ireland.
    Senior officers in the British army who were responsible for cracking down on the IRA were disgusted by the conducted of the Black and Tans also.


  • #18
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    You bet they got revenge on the IRA of whom several thousand were killed, 77 were officially executed .


    The 77 executions are common knowledge but where did you get the information that thousands of IRA men were killed, if true,this would be a sensational revelation:eek:,will you please tell me your source for this information?


  • #19
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    No matter what, the current Government has granted amnesty to Irish Soldiers who fought for the British, technical deserters.

    Move on.

    An amnesty was declared for who deserted the Irish army in WW2,nothing to do with WW1.


  • #20
    Azwaldo55
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭Azwaldo55


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    The 77 executions are common knowledge but where did you get the information that thousands of IRA men were killed, if true,this would be a sensational revelation:eek:,will you please tell me your source for this information?

    There were about 3,000+ republicans killed and 12,000+ taken prisoner.

    Michael Hopkinson, Green Against Green

    The library is your friend.


  • #21
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    The 77 executions are common knowledge but where did you get the information that thousands of IRA men were killed, if true,this would be a sensational revelation:eek:

    Not really! If you take anything from 2,000 and above then "thousands" of Republican dead is pretty much accepted by all.

    I've read various sources of casualty lists from the Civil War over the years and if you take them all together, you're talking under 1,000 Free State forces killed and between 2 and 3,000 Irregulars. I'd lean closer to the 2k mark personally.

    The thing that drives the casualty rate of that conflict up is civilian dead. Its not really known how many innocent people lost their lives but its generally accepted that those caught up in the crossfire in one way or another would have accounted for nearly half of the entire figure.

    Overall I reckon the best estimate would be around 5,000 killed all in, although I think the casualties of the sectarian conflict in the north at that time are normally counted separately.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »
    There were about 3,000+ republicans killed and 12,000+ taken prisoner.

    Michael Hopkinson, Green Against Green

    The library is your friend.


    :rolleyes:Just one of the many "estimates" bandied about , but no reliable data is available from any source, but I am sure someone is working on it.;)


  • #23
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Not really! If you take anything from 2,000 and above then "thousands" of Republican dead is pretty much accepted by all.

    I've read various sources of casualty lists from the Civil War over the years and if you take them all together, you're talking under 1,000 Free State forces killed and between 2 and 3,000 Irregulars. I'd lean closer to the 2k mark personally.

    The thing that drives the casualty rate of that conflict up is civilian dead. Its not really known how many innocent people lost their lives but its generally accepted that those caught up in the crossfire in one way or another would have accounted for nearly half of the entire figure.

    Overall I reckon the best estimate would be around 5,000 killed all in, although I think the casualties of the sectarian conflict in the north at that time are normally counted separately.

    Theres a big difference between the often quoted 1000 anti Treaty dead and now this 3000 figure, do you think the civilian dead are now being lumped in with the anti treaty figures.
    I would also be interested to know where you saw Civil war casualty lists, there is an interesting article here by John Durney(http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/06/19/casualties-of-the-irish-civil-war-in-dublin/#.UMOINOTcnTp) and he lists some figures from individual counties where the casualties have been studied in depth.

    Tom Doyle’s, The Civil War in Kerry throws up a figure of fatal casualties of 170 people, of whom 85 were Free State Army, 72 Anti-Treaty IRA and 12 civilians.[3]
    Michael Farry’s The Irish Revolution: Sligo 1912–23 gives 48 people killed in the county during the civil war, 19 Free State Army, 18 Anti-Treaty IRA and 11 civilians.
    Phillip McConway found that a total of 22 people were killed in County Offaly during the conflict. 8 Free State Army, 11 Anti-Treaty IRA and 3 civilians.[4]
    James Durney’s study of Kildare found 45 deaths, of whom 17 were Free State Army, 3 were police, 8 were Anti-Treaty IRA men executed. It is not clear how many civilians the remainder included.[5]


  • #24
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I came across Durney all right and his figures seem very much on the low side compared to the others. I'd be interested to know where I came across my casualty lists too but I'm afraid I can't remember the names of the books I've read over the last 20-odd years off hand. I can barely remember the name of the one I've just finished! Like anyone else, I take all the information and come up with what I think is the best estimate and that's the figure I've had in my head for the last few years. Could be totally wrong though.

    You have Durney there and Hopkinson above wildly apart for example. Its long been said that the Civil War had over twice as many killed as the Anglo-Irish War which preceded it. That conflict's dead has been said to be around 2,000 but again, how are you supposed to know for sure?

    It doesn't help when institutions of the State itself give out wild figures either. I seen a clip recently on Youtube or the RTE player archive (searching for it at the moment but can't find it) of an RTE Docu from the 90's in which Brian Dobson describes that after the Battle of Crossbarry, 50-odd British soldiers lay dead! Now that's a load of bullsh*t right there and a figure that was pulled right out of their Aras.


  • #25
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I came across Durney all right and his figures seem very much on the low side compared to the others. I'd be interested to know where I came across my casualty lists too but I'm afraid I can't remember the names of the books I've read over the last 20-odd years off hand. I can barely remember the name of the one I've just finished! Like anyone else, I take all the information and come up with what I think is the best estimate and that's the figure I've had in my head for the last few years. Could be totally wrong though.

    You have Durney there and Hopkinson above wildly apart for example. Its long been said that the Civil War had over twice as many killed as the Anglo-Irish War which preceded it. That conflict's dead has been said to be around 2,000 but again, how are you supposed to know for sure?

    It doesn't help when institutions of the State itself give out wild figures either. I seen a clip recently on Youtube or the RTE player archive (searching for it at the moment but can't find it) of an RTE Docu from the 90's in which Brian Dobson describes that after the Battle of Crossbarry, 50-odd British soldiers lay dead! Now that's a load of bullsh*t right there and a figure that was pulled right out of their Aras.


    I agree there has been a lot of wild exaggeration in some instances.

    I think the disparity between the figures may be down to the time passed since Hopkinson's book was published(1988). More thorough research and study by interested parties is producing more accurate figures and a more factual account of the numbers killed is emerging.
    A classic example is this case.For years it was alleged that 200 former British service men were murdered by the IRA in the WOI for informing/spying but that figure has now been revised down to 82, by I believe,Dr.Fitzpatrick of TCD, but he has not to my knowledge produced a list of said victims in the public domain to be scrutinised by independent parties, when this is done we may be a able to get a more specific figure.

    BTW, John Dorney appears to have written this ebook about the civil war, it is reviewed here (http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/04/01/book-review-the-story-of-the-irish-civil-war/)by Dr.Brian Hanley of Maynooth

    His quote at the end
    "We still lack a complete list of Civil War dead and the figure given for IRA fatalities seems high to me"


  • #26
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Very fair points there mate. You're probably more of an authority on this than I am.

    One thing I do think generally holds true in these kinds of past conflicts is that civilian casualties tend not to be recorded for one reason or another and when they are, its just kind of as an adage. Whatever the death rate of the CW was, you can be fairly certain that innocent civilians made up a sizeable chunk of it as is almost always the case with these things.


  • #27
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Jesus. wrote: »
    It doesn't help when institutions of the State itself give out wild figures either. I seen a clip recently on Youtube or the RTE player archive (searching for it at the moment but can't find it) of an RTE Docu from the 90's in which Brian Dobson describes that after the Battle of Crossbarry, 50-odd British soldiers lay dead! Now that's a load of bullsh*t right there and a figure that was pulled right out of their Aras.

    Kabakuyu, I've found that Docu. Its right at the beginning and he actually says 39 British dead as opposed to 50-odd like I said (which in itself shows how things can get exaggerated!) but that's still wildly inaccurate in my opinion. Maybe RTE back then were still in the business of romanticising Ireland's history and her fearless warriors in place of actual facts :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl66ixAXm_A


  • #28
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Kabakuyu, I've found that Docu. Its right at the beginning and he actually says 39 British dead as opposed to 50-odd like I said (which in itself shows how things can get exaggerated!) but that's still wildly inaccurate in my opinion. Maybe RTE back then were still in the business of romanticising Ireland's history and her fearless warriors in place of actual facts :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl66ixAXm_A


    Cheers for that .Don't know much about Crossbarry, there seems to be confusion still to day, look at these 2 different sites, both sides were prone to exaggerate casualties but you would hope the truth would be easier to ascertain today.

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~corkcounty/Timeline/Crossbarry.htm

    The above mentions 39 BA killed, according to BA official reports, but no linked source for said documents.

    http://www.cairogang.com/soldiers-killed/crossbarry-ambush/crossbarry.html

    The above confirms 10 dead and names them, it also quotes from a contemporary newspaper report in "The Freemans Journal"

    I wonder what the truth is? I am more inclined to go with the second article.


  • #29
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Its hard to know but 39 does sound high. Maybe its somewhere in between the two figures.

    The following piece in your 1st link is an interesting titbit. I remember reading about it in Barry's "Guerilla days in Ireland".

    From the beginning of the fighting Flor Begley, the brigade piper, played martial airs on his war pipes and continued to play while the firing lasted. Volunteers who fought at Crossbarry, spoke later of the way the piper spurred them on to greater effort. Tom Kelleher often said over the years that followed, "that man's music was more effective than twenty rifles”. The piper also had an effect on the morale of the British troops. They would have associated a piper with a battalion in their army, and consequently would have thought that there were many more volunteers present than there really were. Liam Deasy, writing some forty years later, says in his book "Towards Ireland Free" that "this was Begleys finest hour and will always be remembered as "The Piper Of Crossbarry".

    Speaking of pipers, I don't know if you saw the WW1 Glasnevin memorial a week or two ago but there was a lovely tune played by a combined band of Irish and British Army pipers and brass.

    Its at 21:47 here if you missed it / are interested:

    http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10309101/


  • #30
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Diarmaid Ferriter was on Vin Browne the other night (Christ, has Ireland only got one historian?) and he said "over 7,000 people were killed between 1917 and 1923" RE the troubles in Ireland at the time.

    I don't know why he said 1917. I would have thought it'd be either 1916 or 1919 that he'd use as a starting point but how and ever.

    His figures are certainly toward the high end of the scale.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Does anyone know if this chap O'Halpin came to a casualty figure for the Civil War? The posters at the bottom of this link said he had a book coming out and that was back in 2012

    http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/02/10/eunan-o-halpin-on-the-dead-of-the-irish-revolution/#.VE_P4_msUSN

    Also, why does he (along with Ferriter mentioned above) use 1917 as the starting point? Would it not be 1919?


  • #32
    Dr.Nightdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭Dr.Nightdub


    I'm pretty sure that O'Halpin's research only covers the period up to the signing of the Treaty


  • #33
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Do you know why all these historians use 1917 as the start date as opposed to 1919? There weren't many (any?) political killings in '17 & '18, were there?

    The Anglo Irish war commenced in 1919 I always thought


  • #34
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You'd have to read the book to find out. But my guess is that he has figures for the overall period covered by his book, 1916-23, and he divides these into:

    1916 - the Rising
    1917-21 - the War of Independence
    1922-23 - the Civil War

    In fact the figures for 1917/18 would be tiny; it is hardly going to matter which category he assigns them to, but he wants the three categories to cover the entire period between them.


  • #35
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    But like I said above, he's not the only one that does it. Diarmuid Ferriter does so aswell as do others I've come across. You're probably correct that they want to cover the entire period but I don't really understand why. If there was no conflict in '17 & '18, why include them at all when calculating casualties?

    Weird


  • #36
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Not weird, it’s just about neat tidy minds producing (unsuccessfully, it would appear) a schedule to avoid criticism from pedants who obsess about trivia. As Peregrinus says
    1916 - the Rising
    1917-21 - the War of Independence
    1922-23 - the Civil War
    No gaps, nowhere for the zany to hypothesize about a few deaths falling through the cracks of time…….:)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    It is a pity that we must capitulate common sense for the sake of the zany but perhaps its a necessary evil :)


  • #38
    HIB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭HIB


    Azwaldo55 wrote: »

    However recruitment into the British Army even in Co. Cork one of the most violent counties in Ireland remained high with thousands of men joining up.


    Was this actually during the war of independence?
    Did they risk reprisals against their families if they joined the army?
    Was it a comparatively well paid job?

    Thanks again for the summary.... One thing I had never considered but is I suppose, obvious in hindsight, is that many soldiers would have simply switched uniforms, from British to Irish in 1921!


  • #39
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Not weird, it’s just about neat tidy minds producing (unsuccessfully, it would appear) a schedule to avoid criticism from pedants who obsess about trivia. As Peregrinus says
    1916 - the Rising
    1917-21 - the War of Independence
    1922-23 - the Civil War
    No gaps, nowhere for the zany to hypothesize about a few deaths falling through the cracks of time…….:)

    Would the Soloheadbeg Ambush of 21st January 1919 not be considered the start of the War of Independence?

    http://www.policehistory.com/soloheadbeg.html


  • #40
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Hopefully, O'Halpin will do a better job than he did on the infamous 2011 TV programe "In the name of the Republic"

    http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/03/28/tv-documentary-review-in-the-name-of-the-republic/#.VFT2qCKsXTo


  • #41
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    AAh THAT'S O'Halpin. I remember that show, it was very poor. If I had've known who's research I was dealing with I wouldn't have bothered!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Historybluff
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Historybluff


    O'Halpin has written an article* on deaths caused by the Irish Revolution between January 1917 and December 1921.

    He says there were 2,141 deaths (including 11 in Great Britain). Of these 1,243 (52%) were combatants and 898 (48%) were civilians.

    Of the 1,243 combatants killed, 467 (38%) were members of the IRA, 514 (41%) were police and 262 (21%) were British military.

    O'Halpin's TV documentary 'In the Name of the Republic' was fairly bad, but I think his written work is good.

    *Eunan O'Halpin, 'Counting Terror: Bloody Sunday and The Dead of the Irish Revolution' in David Fitzpatrick (ed.), Terror in Ireland, 1916-1923 (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 2012), pp. 141-157 (O'Halpin has a book coming out on the topic soon.)


  • #43
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    That was linked at the top of the page, Bluff :)


  • #44
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    HIB wrote: »
    Thanks again for the summary.... One thing I had never considered but is I suppose, obvious in hindsight, is that many soldiers would have simply switched uniforms, from British to Irish in 1921!
    Not so much. A lot of the poeple who joined the National Army in 1922 had been in the British forces, but not immediately before - they had served in 1914-18, been demobilised, done something else for a time, very often been volunteers in the War of Independence, and then joined the National Army. By 1923 probably half of the National Amy consisted of British ex-servicemen, but most of those had left the British forces several years before. (A fair chunk of the Republican forces would also have been British ex-servicemen, but I haven't seen any figures on that.)

    For obvious reasons, the British army had downsized significantly in the year or two following 1918. They had no particular need to downsize further in 1922. They did disband a number of regiments which traditionally recruited in what was now the Free State - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers, etc. By the time they were disbanded, they were already much reduced - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, for example, consisted of two battalions, down from a high of 11, and that would be fairly typical. Serving members of the regiments upon disbandment were reassigned to other continuing regiments though I suspect that, individually, if they asked to be discharged they would have been.


  • #45
    HIB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭HIB


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Not so much. A lot of the poeple who joined the National Army in 1922 had been in the British forces, but not immediately before - they had served in 1914-18, been demobilised, done something else for a time, very often been volunteers in the War of Independence, and then joined the National Army. By 1923 probably half of the National Amy consisted of British ex-servicemen, but most of those had left the British forces several years before. (A fair chunk of the Republican forces would also have been British ex-servicemen, but I haven't seen any figures on that.)

    For obvious reasons, the British army had downsized significantly in the year or two following 1918. They had no particular need to downsize further in 1922. They did disband a number of regiments which traditionally recruited in what was now the Free State - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers, etc. By the time they were disbanded, they were already much reduced - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, for example, consisted of two battalions, down from a high of 11, and that would be fairly typical. Serving members of the regiments upon disbandment were reassigned to other continuing regiments though I suspect that, individually, if they asked to be discharged they would have been.

    Interesting. So what kind of people actually comprised the British army units which were stationed in Ireland from 1918 - 1922? Were they people born and raised in Ireland? Or, was it the case that the regiments based in Ireland were recruited from England/Scotland/Wales, traditionally?


  • #46
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Long-term, standard pattern was that regiments raised and based in Ireland had two or three battallions - let's take an example with two battallions, to keep things simple. One battallion would be permanently stationed in, say, India, and would be staffed and equipped for whatever its intended role in India might be. The other battallion would be based in Ireland, and would be used for training, for reserves, for standing down men who for medical or other reasons needed to take a back seat for a while, etc. The home battallion would usually be somewhat understaffed and have the older and crappier eqipment; it was used, basically, to keep the more active battallion up to full strength. In a three-battallion regiment, two battallions would be abroad and one at home, for training, reserves, etc.

    In 1919-21, although British military presence in Ireland was massively increased, this pattern didn't actually change. The British didn't want to use Irish troops to hold Ireland. It was shockingly bad for morale, plus their reliablity and loyalty was called into question by the circumstances. So the additional troops brought in were not Irish battallions brought home, but English, Scottish or Welsh units. Plus the Black-and-Tans, who were temporary troops, and the Auxiliaries, who were technically police and not army, though it would have been hard to tell from looking at them. There were Irish people in both the Tans and the Auxiliaries, but they were a minority and they were invariably sent to serve well away from their home districts, in company with (and usually under the command of) English or Scottish men.


  • #47
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    Plus the Black-and-Tans, who were temporary troops, and the Auxiliaries, who were technically police and not army, though it would have been hard to tell from looking at them.

    Tans were temporary police rather than temporary troops. Generally stationed individually with normal RIC; Auxiliaries were generally organised along company lines and worked as a unit, often independent of the normal RIC.


Advertisement