Poppy wreath on site of Easter Rising battlefield

Snickers Man · 08-11-2015 8:24pm #1

Yesterday I was on my way home from town when I saw the following on the railings of Mount St Bridge, Dublin site of a particularly fierce battle of the Easter Rising. There was a note on it which said something like.

"In memory of the soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters who were ambushed and killed here during the Easter Rising and of all civilian victims. Lest we forget."

I only returned today to take a photograph of it and in the meantime the note had disappeared, presumably thanks to the bad weather of the recent 24 hours so the quote above is only from memory.

The engagement at Mount St Bridge is well known. There is indeed a long-standing republican monument to the event just around the corner from where this wreath was attached.

Popular local recollection is that the Sherwood Foresters were rushed over to Dublin as reinforcements after the rebellion started and were unsure where they were. It was even suspected they might have thought they were in France where there was, after all, a World War taking place at the time. Though I doubt even back then in those more isolated times that the Dublin 4 accent was so indecipherable to the stout yeomen of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire that they would mistake it for French or German.

Certainly they were most ineptly led: they kept charging up Northumberland Road at the rebels ensconced in houses on the other side of the bridge and were slaughtered as a consequence. Nobody seemed to think they might hang a left at Haddington Road, scoot up to Hubband Bridge or Baggot St Bridge and outflank the rebels that way.

Miners led by minors, one can't help thinking.

My first reaction on seeing the wreath was "That's a bit cheeky! I wonder is there a memorial, temporary or permanent, in the East End of London to the casualties from the Luftwaffe who were killed in the skies above in 1940." Just to cite one example.

And then I thought that there are plenty of British war cemeteries on the territory of former enemies throughout the world, not least in Germany and Turkey. And surely it's time to acknowledge the courage and sacrifice of the enemy soldiers as well now that bygones have long since been rendered bygones.

Mind you, I don't believe for a second that the wreath was placed by British visitors or distant relatives of the Sherwood Forester soldiers. It's far more likely to have been placed by the type of sycophant who thinks that the soldiers of the British Army were our soldiers, that we were all on the same side and it's about time we pretended that that was always the case. In the name of reconciliation, of course.

And it's a little disingenuous to have linked the deaths of the Foresters with "all civilian deaths" as if they were all caused by the same side. Which side, after all, was most responsible for the destruction of much of central Dublin, so graphically photographed by the newsreels of the time?

To paraphrase Fluther Good in O'Casey's The Plough and the Stars, was it more likely to have been the "few hundred scrawls of chaps with shotguns and rosary beads" or their enemy the "thousands of trained soldiers with foot horse and artillery" (and gunboats)?

Lest we forget.

Del.Monte · 08-11-2015 8:57pm

I think that the unfortunate Sherwood Foresters were fresh recruits who were still training when they were rushed to Ireland. Here's a pic from the RTE series "Insurrection" which - apart from the CIE bus stop - is quite a good recreation.

https://irelandsmovies.wordpress.com/

Jesus. · 08-11-2015 9:24pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

"In memory of the soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters who were ambushed and killed here during the Easter Rising and of all civilian victims. Lest we forget."

They were hardly ambushed. They came under fire as they advanced and a set piece fight ensued.

Some English guy got onto Heather Humphries last year suggesting a joint memorial to the Volunteers & the Foresters in time for 2016 at the site. He was very respectful to the Volunteers & suggested a simple monument with the insignia of both Volunteers and Foresters with perhaps one sentence of suitable text underneath. I thought it was a good idea but it ain't happening.

tabbey · 08-11-2015 10:38pm

The Sherwood Foresters were indeed undergoing basic training, at Watford, when they were hurriedly sent to Dublin. They had almost completed this training. It is believed that the recruits had not been informed of their destination initially, but arriving in Liverpool, they would have been aware that they were not heading to France.
Marching into the city, from Kingstown / Dun Laoghaire, the destination was Kilmainham. One group went via Donnybrook and Leeson Street bridge, and reached it without incident. The second went via Ballsbridge intending to cross Mount Street bridge, but were ambushed at two points, first 25 Northumberland Road, then Clanwilliam House. Corralled between the two, the troops were mowed down.
It would have been prudent to have diverted the second group via Pembroke Road, but the military authorities were adamant that this route must be taken at all costs. Truly they were lions led by donkeys.
From the insurgents point of view, the battle of Mount Street bridge was by far the most successful action of the 1916 rising, and the two men in 25 Northumberland Road plus the small number in Clanwilliam House, must go down in history as very brave men. But from a human perspective the loss of so much human life was a tragedy.
The soldiers who were slaughtered on Northumberland Road are worthy of commemoration as much as anyone else in this conflict.

Dr.Nightdub · 09-11-2015 1:09am

The poppy wreath on Mount St Bridge was placed by Dublin & Wicklow L.O.L. 1313: https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Wicklow-LOL-1313-128724713824787/

I think it's interesting that the Orange Order is now commemorating the Sherwood Foresters as having been killed in a war rather than a rebellion.

Snickers Man · 09-11-2015 2:36pm

Snickers Man wrote:

Mind you, I don't believe for a second that the wreath was placed by British visitors or distant relatives of the Sherwood Forester soldiers. It's far more likely to have been placed by the type of sycophant who thinks that the soldiers of the British Army were our soldiers, that we were all on the same side and it's about time we pretended that that was always the case.

Wow! I was right!!

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

The poppy wreath on Mount St Bridge was placed by Dublin & Wicklow L.O.L. 1313: https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Wicklow-LOL-1313-128724713824787/

From said Facebook Page

Dublin Orange men assemble on Mount Street Bridge in an act of remembrance to those who paid the ultimate supreme sacrifice in putting down the 1916 Rebellion. A rebellion which was aimed at replacing constitutional government with tyrannical government and civic peace and harmony with rape and murder of life and property. We like to thank the Belfast Telegraph for covering the event and the photography student from UCD. In addition, we thank those representatives from the "Reform Group" who also attended and the many fellow Dublin citizen who engaged us with voices of support. Going forward; Dublin orange men will be holding an annual act of remembrance on the bridge.

There's a conciliatory attitude!! "rape and murder of life and property".

And as for the "ultimate supreme sacrifice"! What kind of tautological talk is that?

I think the main thing being "raped and murdered" in this passage is the Queen's English.

Snickers Man · 09-11-2015 3:18pm

The Belfast Telegraph covered the story.

Mind you it was drowned out by a report about the anguish felt by some Ulster Rugby fans about their team NOT wearing a poppy.

johnny_doyle · 09-11-2015 8:32pm

Don't mind poppies and Remembrance (3 Gt Grandfathers killed as a result of WW1 plus 2 Gt Uncles and a number of other relatives). Something distasteful about the Orange Order and this effort.

The book "The Sherwood Foresters in the Easter Rising Dublin 1916" came out recently by the Foresters archivist Cliff Housey. I think the call for a memorial to the Foresters came from this chap. The book itself has some good reference material re the Forester casualties but has some crud material on Irish history, lots of errors and typos, no references and sadly no acknowledgement of the Irish casualties suffered in the area e.g. the IAVTC men, CQMS Robert Gamble, Richard Waters, etc. Book is too expensive for what it is.

Private Ernest Farnsworth was one of the Forester casualties in Dublin. Enlisted 5th October 1914 ie not a raw recruit in April 1916. He is not commemorated on the Nottingham Roll of Honour whereas his brother William who was killed in France in 1917 is on the roll. I'd suggest that those calling for a memorial should look at how the soldiers are remembered in England before calling for a memorial in Dublin.

At the launch of "Courage Boys, We Are Winning" at the GPO 2 weeks ago there was reference to the Foresters being rewarded with the firing squad duties at Kilmainham for the mauling they got at Mount St. I cringe when this sort of nonsense is spouted.

DarkyHughes · 09-11-2015 11:30pm

Who put them their?

davycc · 10-11-2015 5:04am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Who put them their?

the kind deluded KKK like folk of the dublin and wicklow orange order badly rewriting their own version of history along with it

'Dublin Orange men assemble on Mount Street Bridge in an act of remembrance to those who paid the ultimate supreme sacrifice in putting down the 1916 Rebellion. A rebellion which was aimed at replacing constitutional government with tyrannical government and civic peace and harmony with destruction of property and murder. We like to thank the Belfast Telegraph for covering the event and the photography student from UCD. In addition, we thank those representatives from the "Reform Group" who also attended and the many fellow Dublin citizen who engaged us with voices of support. Going forward; Dublin orange men will be holding an annual act of remembrance on the bridge. www.dublin1313.com'

https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Wicklow-LOL-1313-128724713824787/

Call me Al · 10-11-2015 10:12am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Wow! I was right!!

From said Facebook Page

Dublin Orange men assemble on Mount Street Bridge in an act of remembrance to those who paid the ultimate supreme sacrifice in putting down the 1916 Rebellion. A rebellion which was aimed at replacing constitutional government with tyrannical government and civic peace and harmony with rape and murder of life and property. We like to thank the Belfast Telegraph for covering the event and the photography student from UCD. In addition, we thank those representatives from the "Reform Group" who also attended and the many fellow Dublin citizen who engaged us with voices of support. Going forward; Dublin orange men will be holding an annual act of remembrance on the bridge.

There's a conciliatory attitude!! "rape and murder of life and property".

And as for the "ultimate supreme sacrifice"! What kind of tautological talk is that?

I think the main thing being "raped and murdered" in this passage is the Queen's English.

I note they have edited their Facebook post.... No rape anymore!
I am sure the 1916 commemoration would not be too thrilled with references and allegations such as that doing the rounds

landofthetree · 10-11-2015 11:55pm

In Robert Kees Ireland-A television history he interviews people who took part and witnesses to the battle. He even interviews British soldiers who took part.

Ireland - A Television History - Part 8 of 13 - 'Rising' on youtube. At 31mins.

laoch na mona · 11-11-2015 10:58am

the level of historical revision in that post is shocking, the Unionist community in the south is small but they have a right to commemorate "their" dead (I may strongly disagree with them but that doesn't effect their right) but blatant revisionism such as presenting 1916 as some sort of attempt to create despotism should not be supported by anyone interested in history

DarkyHughes · 11-11-2015 5:13pm

davycc wrote: »

the kind deluded KKK like folk of the dublin and wicklow orange order badly rewriting their own version of history along with it

'Dublin Orange men assemble on Mount Street Bridge in an act of remembrance to those who paid the ultimate supreme sacrifice in putting down the 1916 Rebellion. A rebellion which was aimed at replacing constitutional government with tyrannical government and civic peace and harmony with destruction of property and murder. We like to thank the Belfast Telegraph for covering the event and the photography student from UCD. In addition, we thank those representatives from the "Reform Group" who also attended and the many fellow Dublin citizen who engaged us with voices of support. Going forward; Dublin orange men will be holding an annual act of remembrance on the bridge. www.dublin1313.com'

https://www.facebook.com/Dublin-Wicklow-LOL-1313-128724713824787/

So Orange Fascism is still alive & well in the South. How much does our government give to scum to fund their halls?

Jesus. · 11-11-2015 6:43pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

So Orange Fascism is still alive & well in the South. How much does our government give to scum to fund their halls?

Quite a pretty penny during the Celtic Tiger years. I know guys who went to Flanders and the Somme on the back of such funding. Doubt they get much now though.

Ironically it was Dev Jnr Jnr who gave them the wedge

Call me Al · 11-11-2015 7:43pm

Who are, or what is, the Reform Group they reference in that post?

davycc · 11-11-2015 8:33pm

Call me Al wrote: »

Who are, or what is, the Reform Group they reference in that post?

first i heard of them but they promote the south of ireland rejoining the commonwealth apparently

Del.Monte · 11-11-2015 8:35pm

davycc wrote: »

first i heard of them but they promote the south of ireland rejoining the commonwealth apparently

Well it's nor all that outrageous a suggestion and in the highly unlikely event that unity appears on the horizon some gesture will have to be made - other than two fingers. Anyway, it will never happen in either case.

johnny_doyle · 11-11-2015 11:33pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

"In memory of the soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters who were ambushed and killed here during the Easter Rising and of all civilian victims. Lest we forget."

And it's a little disingenuous to have linked the deaths of the Foresters with "all civilian deaths" as if they were all caused by the same side. Which side, after all, was most responsible for the destruction of much of central Dublin, so graphically photographed by the newsreels of the time?

a link on my blog to some of the newsreels of the time (and some wrongly labelled as 1916)

http://johnny-doyle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/easter-rising-damage-on-film.html

Worth remembering that the School House caretaker and his wife were killed by the Foresters.

Amongst the soldiers who would be commemorated with the general WW1 dead would be Private John O'Neill from Dublin. His younger brother William and his brother-in-law John O'Neill (a Boer War veteran of the British Army) were amongst those murdered by the South Staffs Regt in North King St.

Private Brian Callender was killed in France while the Rising was going on. His wife and brother were with the rebels. Another brother was killed with the British Army in 1917. Brian Callender was one of the founders of the Fianna Pipe Band. His mother's restaurant provided the meals to Padraig Pearse before his journey to Kilmainham.

Jesus. · 12-11-2015 2:13am

davycc wrote: »

first i heard of them but they promote the south of ireland rejoining the commonwealth apparently

They do considerably more than that. I've been checking in on their website for about 10 years now and they can be quite virulent in their Unionism at times. Their recent frenzy over the new passport having a picture of Gaelic games on the inside is just one example. They're not too unlike their northern cousins.

Nichard Dixon · 13-11-2015 3:48am

These guys do share the colonial perspective of those in the northern part of the coutry. They are a bit of an anachronism though, there are now more supporters of ISIS in Dublin than of the Orange Order, and both equally inappropriate in a 21st century society.

An Claidheamh · 13-11-2015 4:10am

Is the wreath still there? If so, why?

Jokes on us. Our government funds these nutters.

Reform group are a handful of sectarian oddballs who enjoy the masochism of living in Ireland while believing they're British or something.

They're sad. David Norris I believe was involved with them before .... He gets around.

LordSutch · 14-11-2015 8:58pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Is the wreath still there? If so, why?

Jokes on us. Our government funds these nutters.

Reform group are a handful of sectarian oddballs who enjoy the masochism of living in Ireland while believing they're British or something.

Is it just that particular poppy wreath you object to?

DarkyHughes · 23-11-2015 7:50pm

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Is the wreath still there? If so, why?

Jokes on us. Our government funds these nutters.

Reform group are a handful of sectarian oddballs who enjoy the masochism of living in Ireland while believing they're British or something.

They're sad. David Norris I believe was involved with them before .... He gets around.

This David Norris?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lCpzQ5FJ-I

Seems he was involved in taking hem down a peg or two.

I agree with the top part of your post tho. our government funding these nutters is like Britain helping to fund to the AOH the mirror image of the OO.

recedite · 23-12-2015 5:13pm

50 facts about the rising says this;

The Easter Rising was considered a betrayal at first by many of the Irish citizenry, and the 1916 leaders were spat at on their way to jail. It was only when the executions began that the national mood changed...

Many of the leaders believed in the effectiveness of a ‘blood sacrifice’ to inspire Irish nationalism. Blood sacrifice was a very common theme of the times from the First World War. The severe punishment of ‘death by being shot’ served to those leading the rising inspired both Irish nationalism and British resentment, just as the Military Council hoped.

So it was far from being a democratic movement. It sought to overthrow British rule by violence, instead of working for a proper democratic mandate from the people.

It is disgraceful that the Irish govt funds the Orange Order, and works to secure EU funding for them too.

But if we are going to talk about fascism, nobody was more fascist than Padraic Pearse. It is also disgraceful that the govt. funds St Endas in Rathfarham as a monument to him. A place where he trained young boys in pseudo military style, like lambs to the slaughter. Filled their heads with hate, extreme nationalism and notions of blood sacrifice and martyrdom. Then there is the young girl who died and was working as a nude sculpture model there for the other Pearse brother. There's definitely a whiff of the paedophile about that place.

Although it is known that he was close to one of his child models, Mabel Gorman, his letters to her do not survive, and there is no sense of what was at the heart of that relationship or what it amounted to. It is, we are told, “hard to evaluate the reasons for the sustained friendship with Mabel”. It may be that Willie had a “natural understanding of children”

from article

If the rebels had won, Pearse would have become another Franco, and a civil war with Connolly's socialists would have been inevitable.

jonniebgood1 · 23-12-2015 5:26pm

recedite wrote: »

50 facts about the rising says this;
So it was far from being a democratic movement. It sought to overthrow British rule by violence, instead of working for a proper democratic mandate from the people.

It is disgraceful that the Irish govt funds the Orange Order, and works to secure EU funding for them too.

But if we are going to talk about fascism, nobody was more fascist than Padraic Pearse. It is also disgraceful that the govt. funds St Endas in Rathfarham as a monument to him. A place where he trained young boys in pseudo military style, like lambs to the slaughter. Filled their heads with hate, extreme nationalism and notions of blood sacrifice and martyrdom. not to mention the young girl who was killed there in suspicious circumstances, working as a sculpture model for the other Pearse brother. There's definitely a whiff of the paedophile about that place.

If the rebels had won, Pearse would have become another Franco, and a civil war with Connolly's socialists would have been inevitable.

A lot of conjecture in this. Plus in relation to your last sentence there was a civil war anyway so its not much of an argument against Pearse to say a civil war was inevitable if he had won. In any case did the rebels not achieve their 1916 aim?

recedite · 23-12-2015 11:53pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In any case did the rebels not achieve their 1916 aim?

Yes indeed, you could say the blood sacrifice "paid off" for the rebels. The Sherwood Foresters may have won the battle, but their equal willingness to patriotically die for their country is not celebrated as a glorious sacrifice by anyone (except a handful of orangemen). So you could say the British army may have won the battle, but they ultimately lost the war.

If the rebels had waited until after SF won the elections before launching an insurrection, we could remember them as the heroic defenders of the first Dail, the protectors of democracy.
That's assuming of course that in a different atmosphere of WW1 victory in 1918, a grateful Britain wouldn't have negotiated a 32 county home rule arrangement acceptable to the majority in north and south. Thereby leaving SF on the fringes.

johnny_doyle · 24-12-2015 11:15am

recedite wrote: »

So it was far from being a democratic movement. It sought to overthrow British rule by violence, instead of working for a proper democratic mandate from the people.

How many of the rank and file Sherwood Foresters at Mount St were eligible to vote? Ditto their parents, siblings and wives?

recedite · 24-12-2015 3:26pm

Only about 56% of adult males could vote before 1918, but subsequently all men over the age of 21 and most women over the age of 30 could.
Unjust by today's standards, but in 1916 it was thought that only people who owned their own house or some form of property were sufficiently invested in the stability of society to vote responsibly.

With the end of WWI everything was changed, women were working in the fields and in factories in Britain, and the absolute power of the gentry was at an end. The so called "working classes" were already getting a basic education. The Easter Rising was not a contributory factor to any of those changes.

DarkyHughes · 24-12-2015 3:59pm

I don't see any problem with rembering soldiers but I do take issue with the fascist symbol.

johnny_doyle · 24-12-2015 7:24pm

recedite wrote: »

Only about 56% of adult males could vote before 1918, but subsequently all men over the age of 21 and most women over the age of 30 could.
Unjust by today's standards, but in 1916 it was thought that only people who owned their own house or some form of property were sufficiently invested in the stability of society to vote responsibly.

With the end of WWI everything was changed, women were working in the fields and in factories in Britain, and the absolute power of the gentry was at an end. The so called "working classes" were already getting a basic education. The Easter Rising was not a contributory factor to any of those changes.

how would you have got a democratic mandate in Ireland in 1916?

johnny_doyle · 24-12-2015 7:26pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I don't see any problem with rembering soldiers but I do take issue with the fascist symbol.

have you been at the brandy mince pies today?

Jesus. · 24-12-2015 10:16pm

recedite wrote: »

Only about 56% of adult males could vote before 1918, but subsequently all men over the age of 21 and most women over the age of 30 could. Unjust by today's standards, but in 1916 it was thought that only people who owned their own house or some form of property were sufficiently invested in the stability of society to vote responsibly.

So in other words, Ireland (& GB) was not a free Country at the time

recedite wrote: »

The Easter Rising was not a contributory factor to any of those changes.

It was part of their intention according to the Proclamation the morning the Rising began

recedite · 26-12-2015 1:04pm

Happy Christmas folks, and Happy Birthday Jesus.

johnny_doyle wrote: »

how would you have got a democratic mandate in Ireland in 1916?

I don't think it was possible. On the other hand, John Redmond was pleading with people to wait until the end of WW1, saying everything would change then. Did the Easter Rising bring full democracy to Ireland? No, it brought war and destruction.
Voting rights for landless men came in at the end of WW1, in 1918, by an Act of Parliament in London. Voting for women came about later as a result of political lobbying by the sufragette movement.

Jesus wrote:

So in other words, Ireland (& GB) was not a free Country at the time.

Free in the sense that people were able to move around freely and go about their business, unlike say the Russian serfs of the previous century. But not free to participate in democracy. It was more aristocracy than democracy. But the Gaelic Revivalists such as Pearse and Yeats came from relatively wealthy backgrounds. They were not particularly interested in socialism like James Connolly was. Connolly was equally comfortable talking to the dock workers of Dublin or Liverpool. Pearse was part of the "arty" set; the Gaelic aristocracy. Hence a civil war between their two private armies would have been inevitable, even if the Rising had succeeded and the British had pulled out in 1916. It was the far left and the far right temporarily united in a nationalist rebellion.

Jesus wrote:

It was part of their intention according to the Proclamation the morning the Rising began

A lot of good intentions listed in the proclamation, but they were not new ideas. They were rehashed from the 1798 rebellion, which got them from 1789 French revolution, and before that various French and American philosophers had been developing them prior to the 1777 American revolution.
If you look at the moment the actual Irish Republic (with its constitution upholding those ideals) came into being, in 1937, there was barely a whimper and not a single shot fired. We have no Republic Day national holiday to celebrate it. So in that respect Pearse was right; its the pointless bloodletting that people remember, and that's what forges nations in the popular imagination.

By striking in 1916, Pearse engineered a situation that guaranteed years of civil war, whether he won or lost the initial battle. From his point of view, that was a win-win situation, because the years of blood sacrifice would serve to purify the nation.

Looking at Redmonds alternative; a 32 county Ireland with home rule (a Free State) was within reach. By getting the moderates of the south and the north around the negotiating table with the British, and leaving the extremists on the fringes. But Pearses pre-emptive actions snookered all that by polarising the country, permanently. And that's why I consider him to be one of the arch villians of Irish history.

In an alternative history, a 32 county Ireland could have prospered peacefully similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Yes, the Union Jack and the monarch would have remained for a while, but so what. Canada only dumped the Union jack for the maple leaf flag in the 1960s and NZ is debating a new flag now. Any of these countries could vote in a republic by referendum any time they wanted.
It is ironic that so many young Irish emigrate to these countries, when you consider that we could have followed the exact same path to peace and prosperity.
Also interesting to note that these countries have a completely different attitude to their WW1 war dead. For them, the pointless bloodletting of hundreds of thousands of their young men in Flanders and Gallipoli was a defining moment in forging their sense of nationhood. For us, it was an embarrassment to be forgotten. Our chosen "heroic bloodletting" happened around the GPO, and any other heroic bloodletting is a distraction from that.

Basically then, Pearse and Redmond were both right, but they offered two different versions of the future.

Jesus. · 27-12-2015 1:52am

recedite wrote: »

But the Gaelic Revivalists such as Pearse and Yeats came from relatively wealthy backgrounds. They were not particularly interested in socialism like James Connolly was. Connolly was equally comfortable talking to the dock workers of Dublin or Liverpool. Pearse was part of the "arty" set; the Gaelic aristocracy. Hence a civil war between their two private armies would have been inevitable, even if the Rising had succeeded and the British had pulled out in 1916. It was the far left and the far right temporarily united in a nationalist rebellion.

I agree regarding the right & left but I'd like to hear you expand on an inevitable civil war between the IV's and ICA!

recedite wrote: »

If you look at the moment the actual Irish Republic (with its constitution upholding those ideals) came into being, in 1937, there was barely a whimper and not a single shot fired.

The Republic didn't come into being until 1949. Regarding the constitution, not sure what your point is mate

recedite wrote: »

Pearses pre-emptive actions snookered all that by polarising the country, permanently. And that's why I consider him to be one of the arch villians of Irish history.

You seem to be forgetting that the UVF armed & mobilised itself 3 years prior to the Rising and would have staged their own rebellion had the B Govt not backed down regarding Home Rule. The polarising and villainousness had well begun in earnest.

recedite wrote: »

In an alternative history, a 32 county Ireland could have prospered peacefully similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Yes, the Union Jack and the monarch would have remained for a while, but so what. Canada only dumped the Union jack for the maple leaf flag in the 1960s and NZ is debating a new flag now. Any of these countries could vote in a republic by referendum any time they wanted.
It is ironic that so many young Irish emigrate to these countries, when you consider that we could have followed the exact same path to peace and prosperity.

Pie in the sky stuff. Firstly I don't think the north would have acceded to Home Rule (as was demonstrated already by them) but supposing they did, there'd have been no way they'd have gone any further in terms of uniting with the rest of nationalist Ireland. New Zealand etc are simply not comparable in this respect. I do not know if you've ever visited Northern Ireland but you seem to have no notion of the fanaticism of Ulster Protestantism (no offence).

(And Ireland was never given the option of voting in a referendum on a republic & wouldn't have been subsequently either because of the ever present threat of the Unionists.)

recedite wrote: »

Also interesting to note that these countries have a completely different attitude to their WW1 war dead. For them, the pointless bloodletting of hundreds of thousands of their young men in Flanders and Gallipoli was a defining moment in forging their sense of nationhood. For us, it was an embarrassment to be forgotten.

I don't think those Countries saw WW1 as pointless bloodletting. In fact the opposite esp Australia where they fawned over the heroism of it for decades. Only recently have such Countries come to realise the futility of it all.

recedite wrote: »

Our chosen "heroic bloodletting" happened around the GPO, and any other heroic bloodletting is a distraction from that.

Agreed

recedite wrote: »

Basically then, Pearse and Redmond were both right, but they offered two different versions of the future.

Agreed

(Thanks for the b'day wishes

)

DarkyHughes · 27-12-2015 12:53pm

johnny_doyle wrote: »

have you been at the brandy mince pies today?

No, and don't such a ****ing smart ass, if you got a question to ask, ask it, stop making childih comments.

recedite · 27-12-2015 2:30pm

Jesus. wrote: »

I agree regarding the right & left but I'd like to hear you expand on an inevitable civil war between the IV's and ICA!

Well, both private armies were kept under separate control, with different uniforms etc.. which underlines the fact that it was only an alliance between two groups with different long term objectives, not a single unified revolutionary army.

Connolly- a marxist revolutionary, concerned with international workers solidarity; not narrow nationalism. Connected with "syndicalism" and the anarchist labour movement that was most notable in (later) "Republican" Spain.
He was anti church. He controlled the Citizen Army.
And most significant of all, he had a big Stalin moustache :pac:

Pearse- Imagined himself to be part of a revived Gaelic aristocracy, ran a boarding school in an austere and militaristic fascist style, which turned out fanatical followers of his cause. Fiercely patriotic and nationalistic.
Pro-church, so long as it was the RCC. Very similar in outlook to the "Nationalist" Franco faction in Spain
Became spokesman for a rump faction of the Irish Volunteers after the larger faction had joined Redmond in the trenches.

An alliance between these two was like the alliance between Hitler and Stalin; it was bound to end in a war, if they weren't both killed first.

The Republic didn't come into being until 1949. Regarding the constitution, not sure what your point is mate

Technically correct yes, but with the 1937 constitution creating a President, the monarch was displaced as head of state so the situation was somewhat ambiguous 1937-1949. People had more to worry about during that time, I suppose, than the official declaration of a republic.

Firstly I don't think the north would have acceded to Home Rule (as was demonstrated already by them) but supposing they did, there'd have been no way they'd have gone any further in terms of uniting with the rest of nationalist Ireland.

The mood at the end of WW1 was different to 1913. The rank and file UVF membership from Ulster had spent 4 years fighting alongside rank and file IV membership from other parts of Ireland in the trenches. If they had been guaranteed that Home rule did not equate to Rome Rule, I don't think many would have been in the mood for a civil war against the south.
And don't forget it was already a united Ireland, as partition had not yet happened. So it was not a question of uniting them with the south, only of preventing their secession.

I do not know if you've ever visited Northern Ireland but you seem to have no notion of the fanaticism of Ulster Protestantism (no offence).

Oh yes, I've been there and was nearly blown up by an IRA bomb in Belfast.

I don't think those Countries saw WW1 as pointless bloodletting. In fact the opposite esp Australia where they fawned over the heroism of it for decades. Only recently have such Countries come to realise the futility of it all.

The reason they fawned over it, and still do, is that human nature refuses to believe that so much sacrifice could have achieved nothing. And even made the world a worse place.
The same reason we fawn over the marxists and the fascists who caused the destruction of Dublin city centre in 1916.
Australians choose to believe that as a positive outcome of their blood sacrifice, their nation took on an identity of its own. At the same time, deep down, songs such as Waltzing Matilda have always lamented the futility of it all.

feargale · 27-12-2015 3:56pm

davycc wrote: »

first i heard of them but they promote the south of ireland rejoining the commonwealth apparently

Which would you prefer, what we have now or a 32 county Ireland in the Commonwealth, as independent as Canada?

jonniebgood1 · 27-12-2015 4:05pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

No, and don't such a ****ing smart ass, if you got a question to ask, ask it, stop making childih comments.

Over the top reaction darkyhughes. You earn an infraction for the back seat moderation. If you have a problem with a post you should report it as per forum charter.
Moderator.

Jesus. · 28-12-2015 2:31am

Jonnie don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Darky?

DarkyHughes · 28-12-2015 4:44pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Over the top reaction darkyhughes. You earn an infraction for the back seat moderation. If you have a problem with a post you should report it as per forum charter.
Moderator.

Well he's just being an unfunny trolli. How am I suppose to reply the post when it has nothing to do with the actual topic or the post I made? If he has a difference of opinion he can express it instead of restoring to playground remarks & trying to derail the thread.

feargale · 28-12-2015 5:40pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A lot of conjecture in this. Plus in relation to your last sentence there was a civil war anyway so its not much of an argument against Pearse to say a civil war was inevitable if he had won. In any case did the rebels not achieve their 1916 aim?

I have never understood events in Ireland between 1912 and 1921 or any part of them being described as a civil war, other than in the context of promoting the agenda of one side. There was a war of independence. The proportion of unionists in Ireland at that time was pretty much identical to the proportion of loyalists in North America in 1775. I have never heard the American War of Independence called a civil war.

jonniebgood1 · 28-12-2015 8:28pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Jonnie don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Darky?

No, if there someone has a problem with a post they should report it, not respond to it. In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well he's just being an unfunny trolli. How am I suppose to reply the post when it has nothing to do with the actual topic or the post I made? If he has a difference of opinion he can express it instead of restoring to playground remarks & trying to derail the thread.

Your response was ott as per my moderation post. Any more comment should be by pm.

feargale wrote: »

I have never understood events in Ireland between 1912 and 1921 or any part of them being described as a civil war, other than in the context of promoting the agenda of one side. There was a war of independence. The proportion of unionists in Ireland at that time was pretty much identical to the proportion of loyalists in North America in 1775. I have never heard the American War of Independence called a civil war.

The civil war followed the war of independence, nobody suggested it was prior to 1921.

Jesus. · 28-12-2015 9:25pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.

Jawohl mein Fuhrer!

:rolleyes:

DarkyHughes · 29-12-2015 12:14am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No, if there someone has a problem with a post they should report it, not respond to it. In anycase your quote above is not needed in thread so stay away from this type of commentary in future.

Your response was ott as per my moderation post. Any more comment should be by pm.

The civil war followed the war of independence, nobody suggested it was prior to 1921.

What did I say that was so bad? I told him to grow up & stop making childish comments. If deserve a red card for that he deserves one for trolling.

DarkyHughes · 29-12-2015 12:14am

Jesus. wrote: »

Jawohl mein Fuhrer!

:rolleyes:

Haha :pac:

Yeah lighten up a bit mods.

Jesus. · 29-12-2015 1:05am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

If deserve a red card for that he deserves one for trolling.

The way Jonnie dishes out cards on here you'd swear he was a Football Referee suffering from OCD!

jonniebgood1 · 29-12-2015 5:02pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Haha :pac:

Yeah lighten up a bit mods.

Jesus. wrote: »

The way Jonnie dishes out cards on here you'd swear he was a Football Referee suffering from OCD!

Thanks folks,
Take a hike for a few days , a peaceful new year so....
Feel free to pm each other about how unfair the referee is.

Infraction bans both.
Jonniebgood1

Poppy wreath on site of Easter Rising battlefield

Comments