2nd worst war for Irish?

I don't know that it's true that all nationalists think in a "Four legs good, two legs bad" way about Irish and British (or rather English). Many of the "advanced nationalists" of the pre-Rising era were left-wingers who would have had a network of close and affectionate contacts across Britain, Europe and America.
The part of this group that survived the Rising, War of Independence and Civil War were largely driven out of the country or into poverty, however, with the result that some modern nationalists tend to be less left and more rigid and bigoted.
It's an interesting question how societal changes bring about changes in political feeling.
Comhgáirdeachas ar do chuid Ghaeilge, a chara dhíl.

Jesus. wrote: »

Pedro?

What?
Am I now expected to comment on the inaccurate post claiming that great numbers of Irish died in the Napoleonic era or in the Crimea? Or the Foreign Legion? Poor old Joe the Yank is wrong yet again. After this you can do your own homework.

For starters, the Irish in France (and elsewhere, Austria, Poland, etc) were in an earlier period. The Irish Brigade arguably was at its peak at Fontenoy 1745, when an attack by the Irish compelled the British to retire, (they captured 15 cannon and a colour from the Coldstream Guards). Its losses were about 500 casualties on the day, so hardly a calamity unless one was among the dead. Anyway they were French, not Irish as the Brigade had been formed largely from the descendants of the +/- 10,000 soldiers who left Ireland, accompanied by +/- 4,000 women and children after the Williamite Wars to enter the French service. That exodus followed the fall of Limerick, surrendered on terms, every one of which was subsequently ignored or broken by the London-controlled Parliament in Dublin (so they were perfidious Irish):P. The Dillon Regiment was gone by 1800, although Dillon’s brother & cousin also had regiments in the US/Caribbean. The Dillon’s Rhum distillery business was built by one of their descendants. The last of the French Dillons lost his head in the Terror. Quel dommage. So no, the Napoleonic era did not involve Irish men dying in big numbers.
There was an Irish Legion of about 2000 (French Irish mainly with a few hundred Poles) raised for 1798 and strategically it never accomplished much and was disbanded.

There is an interesting article on the Irish in the Crimea here - No doubt you will believe that the cheering crowds in Ireland were forced to wave off the volunteers at gunpoint and that the latter were economic migrants. :P

The Foreign Legion was much later than the Nap wars, and was France’s solution to the rag bag of military remnants / refugees after those wars – hence the initial foreign structure/composition of the FFL that exists even to this day, but very few Irish. The English solution was to ship their lot, mainly Scottish returnees and their families, to Canada. Apart from the question of poverty, being ‘on the parish’ etc., no country wanted too many trained military / battle-hardened men with too little to do sitting around.

And the bit of ranting at me with unionist insults that you deleted was in #35
(I saw it before deletion, I thought how stupid and just let it go :) There is enough s#ite in this thread already.)

It's boring now. There is no fun or merit in debating with those whose inaccurate posts are surpassed only by their bias and ignorance of the subject matter.

Joe has to be a troll when he writes in #78 “I asked you to supply a reliable link and though doubtless you tired hard you failed miserably as expected ” Joe, the source and link for my info on the Irish Brigade is the Department of History, National University of Ireland Maynooth. Are you for real??

Firstly, anyone born in France is French, so unless the Irish Brigade at Fontenoy was made up of geriatrics, the two of you are wrong in claiming that its members were Irish born – I did state that there were second generation Irish and some recruits from Ireland but the latter were few in number. Research the topic and learn.

If Jesus had read McGarry’s book (as he claimed), he would have spotted my error in stating that the captured battle standard came from the Coldstream Guards when in fact it was from Sempill’s Regiment of Foot (forerunner of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers) and not the Guards, as was previously thought. Jesus might also realise that reading one book does not a historian make, as many historians are at odds with some of McGarry’s claims so he is by no means the acknowledged expert.

Jesus in post #32 show how far off track he has gone – he has yet to give a source for his claim that Crown Forces tried to force the population to rebel by using rape and pitch-capping BEFORE the Rebellion broke out. (I never denied that rape and pitchcapping happened, it did - AFTER the event.)

Joe the Yank again shows his ignorance of events in writing
"Yep, he's just tripping over himself. Due to the Penal Laws which forbade Catholics to own arms or join the British army and hence making Ireland a major recruitment source for continental armies."
Actually Catholics were allowed own arms. The Act was called “An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papists” (it was 7 Will III. 1695). “Catholics” and “Papists” are quite different. Additionally, there were several allowances made, notably for “Papist Gentlemen”. Also, the cost of a firearm was far beyond the means of the ordinary Irish person, not a hope of one being owned by a peasant cottier, so the remark is irrelevant.

If all that was not enough, Joe the Yank again shows his ignorance of the Penal Laws as nowhere do they state that Catholics were forbidden to join the British Army.

In his most stupid remark to date. Joe dismisses the skills of the Irish soldiers – read what a noted anti-Irish writer Charles Forman wrote about them as a fighting force at the battles of Cremona, Blenheim, Ramillies, Almanza, Oudenarde, Malplaquet to name just a few.

It’s Christmas, I’ve no interest or time for this s#ite so goodbye

Jesus. wrote: »

This is just one but I'm not kidding when I say for certain that you have little to no knowledge of this subject if you didn't know of such activity. Its part of every academic history on the '98. I mean the reading one single book would have revealed it to you.

"The people of Co Wicklow and north Co Wexford became convinced that they were all going to be slaughtered. This impression was reinforced by the activities of a group of loyalists known as the Black Mob, led by the notorious Hunter Gowan. Men were flogged to death, homes and haggards were burned, suspects were tortured with burning pitch caps, and Hunter Gowan stirred the punch at a local celebration in Gorey with the amputated finger of one of his victims."

(All prior to the outbreak) - BBC short history of Northern Ireland

You, Sir, are a complete chancer

You are still a mile off topic, but just to show you up once more, actually no, those events happened after the outbreak of the Rebellion and it is detailed in full in Jonathan Bardon's History of Ireland in 250 Episodes (not the BBC source you quoted;)) Episode 153, to be exact, here
Just goes to show that you continue to spoof, misquote and have no idea!:D:D:D

More misinterpretation of the facts, Jesus, you ignore the sequence of events and again quote them and sources out of context. Stop and look at the sequence -

The rebellion was not a single spontaneous event, it had been planned and in the pipeline for years. I could – but I won’t - argue that Ireland was in a state of quasi-rebellion long before it actually broke out in Dublin in 1798 on the basis that Ulster was proclaimed and pacified in 1797. The ‘powers that be’ were fully aware of the huge civil unrest and years before 1798 had established militias, then the yeomanry and then brought in Fencibles to bolster the low number of troops in Ireland. (They are all quite different, it is not correct for you to lump them all together under one collective banner.) The highly disturbed nature of the country is why an Insurrection Act was passed in 1796 and why martial law was proclaimed on March 30th 1798.

Contrary to what you claim, no government decision was made to force the issue, there was no mass rape and no mass atrocities to provoke the population into open revolt. There were some local atrocities mainly against innocent civilians (and mostly committed by the Fencible Regiments) but those events were not widespread and when they did occur they were condemned by local gentry/magistrates/figures of authority. Their purpose was to extract information on arms and leaders, nothing else.

On the 18th May the leaders fixed the date for Rebellion - the night of 23 May. That night a small crowd tried to seize Dublin Castle and other key public buildings. That ‘event’ failed miserably because the government knew of the plan and right around the country was anticipating trouble.

Outside Dublin, in parts of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow others rose as planned that night and prevented the mail coaches from passing. The non-arrival of the coaches was the signal to the rebels elsewhere along their routes to rise up, which they did – the “when” was a question of how long the news took to travel, rather than being forced/coerced by Crown forces into taking arms in rebellion.

Yes there were a few atrocities in the days before 23 May – but for example the Swayne you mention, he had arrived at Prosperous only on the 20th May, and while he was a psychopath and a sadist he was not the reason why 500 ‘rebels’ attacked Prosperous two days after his arrival. They already were there as the attack was long planned. The Crown forces in the barracks were heavily defeated on the night of the 23rd. Swayne was piked and burned in a tar barrel. (And FWIW thirty eight soldiers - as Pakenham points out - mainly Catholics from the south - were killed, only nineteen escaped or were spared.)

Similarly your claims on Newtownmountkennedy are incorrect as Pakenham is wrong because he has confused two separate events – firstly in early April “The Ancient Britons” – a Fencible Regiment - led by a Captain Burganey arrived there and were plied with drink by local ‘loyalists’. When asked to point out rebel leaders the loyalists picked out half a dozen men at random who then were hanged. This was roundly condemned by the Yeomanry leader at Bray (a JP) and reported it to Dublin Castle. Then, when the rebels did rise up on the 30th May for “the Battle of Newtownmountkennedy” they were defeated. Burganey was killed in the fighting and it was after his funeral that his troops ran amok.

The key issue is that almost all the atrocities took place after the Rebellion broke out, not before and not as a means of provoking rebellion as you repeatedly have claimed. Context, Jesus, context, multiple sources and timing/sequence of events. Believe what you will, clearly there is no dissuading you with fact, I'm out of here.

Jesus. wrote: »

Incorrect as repeatedly pointed out above. I'll take Lord Longford ahead of your good self Pedro if its okay with you.

Now turn off those red, white and blue Xmas lights you have all over the front of your house. Its very late and they're dazzling the motorists

Poor Jesus, he so dearly loves his Lord; blinded by the Light he cannot see the truth!:D

Originally Posted by pedroeibar1
“Catholics” and “Papists” are quite different

Jesus. wrote: »

Pedro's latest attempt to explain the morality of the Penal Laws
Comedy gold :pac:

One would think that in chosing a Boards name like "Jesus" you would at least have some idea of religion!:rolleyes: Your inaccurate comments above are yet more examples from a serial poster of nonsense and yet another non-sequitor troll remark... who mentioned the Penal Laws? Not I..... Have a look here and see (yet again) how ill-informed your comments are. As for you and your mutually congratulatory friend Joe, Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile (just to show, contrary to your earlier assinine remarks on my origin, go bfhuil an gaeilge agam i gconai! )

1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic? It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry.
The Church of Ireland is Protestant, or Reformed, because it affirms ‘its constant witness against all those innovations in doctrine and worship, whereby the Primitive Faith hath been from time to time defaced or overlaid.’ (Preamble and Declaration to the Constitution of the Church of Ireland of 1870, 1.3)
So there are Catholics who are in communion with Rome and Catholics who are not. But all by baptism belong in the one Church of Christ.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. The Nicene Creed – said at the celebration of the Eucharist in the Church of Ireland