When is an army an 'Army' in History

tac foley · 17-07-2014 9:25pm #1

pO1Neil wrote: »

Including sectarian killings in the north?

Wiki give a number of 2014. -550 IRA, -715 all British forces & -750 civilians.

For the Civil War it gives a number of between 2250 - 4250 (which is astonishing considering the population at the time & that it lasted only 10 months. It also notes that even higher figures of over 5000 were given) around 800 on on the Free State side. 1000 - 3000 on IRA side & 250 civilians.

Regardless of what they actually called themselves, the IRA WERE civilians.

I assume that you mean civilians who were not actively taking any part in the Civil War as combatants?

tac

jonniebgood1 · 18-07-2014 7:22am

tac foley wrote: »

Regardless of what they actually called themselves, the IRA WERE civilians.

I assume that you mean civilians who were not actively taking any part in the Civil War as combatants?

tac

What level or measure do you use to distinguish between civilians and army in the period in question? Flying columns for example were not typical civilians.

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 11:21am

Post-independence the National Army was the army of the new state, the "Irregulars" were, well, irregular.

States and governments are defined by the fact that they maintain a monopoly on legitimate force - anyone else, no matter how well organised, or how correct they reckon their cause to be, is a non-state actor and is by definition a civilian.

By the way, it was Beaslai who coined the phrase "Irregulars" and clearly distinguished between the National Army and the anti-treatites....

The Army must always be referred to as the Irish Army, National Army, National Forces, National Troops, or simply 'the Troops' ... The Irregulars must not be referred to as Executive Forces nor described as Forces or Troops. They are to be called Bands or Bodies or Armed men......the
term Provisional Government should not be used. The correct term is Irish
Government or simply The Government.

General instructions for censorship by Piaras Béaslaí, 27 July 1922

tac foley · 18-07-2014 11:22am

Dear Mr Johnniebegood1 - notwithstanding your position of moderator, I'm at a complete loss to figure out how you might confuse a sworn member of the official military forces of a nation, that is to say, the Irish Free State Army, with a group of disaffected civilians who called themselves an army and elect to fight the legal armed forces of their own country.

I did not say that 'flying columns' were typical civilans - you just did.

However, they were obviously NOT 'typical civilians', but an organised and militarily-trained group of people operating in opposition to the sworn military of the Irish Free State, who WERE, by definition and the generally accepted international status of legally-founded national Armed forces, actually correctly called soldiers.

This 'discussion', I feel, will end badly, with you exercising your moderator status to close it up, but there is an immense gulf between those who ARE soldiers, and those who, without benefit of the uniform and international recognition and conformal status, nevertheless CALL themselves soldiers. That is not simply my opinion, it is a matter of fact, if you care to look up the definition of each word in whatever dictionary you choose to read.

tac

jonniebgood1 · 18-07-2014 2:21pm

tac foley wrote: »

Dear Mr Johnniebegood1 - notwithstanding your position of moderator, I'm at a complete loss to figure out how you might confuse a sworn member of the official military forces of a nation, that is to say, the Irish Free State Army, with a group of disaffected civilians who called themselves an army and elect to fight the legal armed forces of their own country.

I did not say that 'flying columns' were typical civilans - you just did.

However, they were obviously NOT 'typical civilians', but an organised and militarily-trained group of people operating in opposition to the sworn military of the Irish Free State, who WERE, by definition and the generally accepted international status of legally-founded national Armed forces, actually correctly called soldiers.

This 'discussion', I feel, will end badly, with you exercising your moderator status to close it up, but there is an immense gulf between those who ARE soldiers, and those who, without benefit of the uniform and international recognition and conformal status, nevertheless CALL themselves soldiers. That is not simply my opinion, it is a matter of fact, if you care to look up the definition of each word in whatever dictionary you choose to read.

tac

Your starting point and argument in this post is off the chart in terms of irrelevance. for example you assume the following position : "I did not say that 'flying columns' were typical civilans - you just did" when in fact flying columns were given specifically as an example of civilians who were not typical. My point being firstly, you jump to conclusions to quickly and secondly, the conclusion you jump to is plainly wrong or irrelevant.

As to you personalising the discussion (already) by bringing the role of moderator into it, what am I supposed to do to answer that. I suggest we leave that separate as an irrelevance in terms of this thread.

@ Jawgap
Beaslai's definition is highly ironic.

Tacs first reply to OP suggests that IRA in the period were civilians when as an organised force they would seem to be an army. Plainly wrong if we take a dictionary definition for example .

If OP could link to the wiki page they are talking about we could see if the sources are provided to substantiate the figures given. If they are not substantiated then the page is valueless.

riffmongous · 18-07-2014 2:33pm

But is it so simple during a civil war? Both sides are claiming legitimacy and sure you can say only one is legal but if you apply that to the Spanish Civil War does that imply that all the nationalists were civilians? Including the professional Army of Africa?

It should also be remembered that some of the worst atrocities of the irish civil war were carried out by men in uniform
ballyseedy

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 2:47pm

You can call yourself an army (I am a proud member of Heffo's army;) ) - you can dress like one, drill like one, be organised like one and act like one.......but regardless of dictionary definitions, unless your chain of command ends in a sovereign authority based on Westphalian Principles, you're not an army.

Others may disagree, but that's pretty much the established position in international law over the last two centuries.

riffmongous · 18-07-2014 3:01pm

Fair enough since you're quoting international law, but it seems to me then that international law could do with a bit of revision and I'd question how much relevance it has to historical analysis of irregular conflicts then, outside of a legal sense.

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 3:08pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Fair enough since you're quoting international law, but it seems to me then that international law could do with a bit of revision and I'd question how much relevance it has to historical analysis then, outside of a legal sense.

Plenty.

Grant's approach to fighting the Confederates and his "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender" at Fort Donaldson and subsequent engagements was based on the notion that the Confederates were rebels in insurrection and therefore not entitled to usual protections under the laws of war.

Likewise Sherman's "March to the Sea" was justified using the same approach, and the legal justification Emancipation Proclamation was based in part on the idea that the Confederacy was not a separate entity and could still be legislated for from Washington.

riffmongous · 18-07-2014 3:36pm

Ok well that's what I would consider legal, what I mean is I've never seen Confederate soldier dead included in civilian dead totals or their armies referred to as civilian groups or anything

Just reading up on it now on Wiki, would using the phrases 'priviliged combatant' and 'non-priviliged combatant' not be the correct terms here rather than soldier and civilian?
what I was reading

Edit: Hm seems like that mightnt have applied at the time, but can it be retroactively applied?

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 3:56pm

That's what might be called the legal military view. I doubt you'd have to go too far in the Southern States to find someone who could put forward a convincing argument that Lee, Jackson, McClaws and even Bedford-Forrest and their armies were legitimate forces.

riffmongous · 18-07-2014 4:07pm

I see, also it looks like that is really just for deciding how to treat prisoners. Yeah I am sure I read arguments before for the legitimacy of the Confederacy itself

jonniebgood1 · 18-07-2014 6:24pm

This discussion is moved to thread of its own for obvious reasons.
>>>

I understand the military interpretation but that must come with the proviso that those who decide this are protecting themselves and their ilk. I would propose that it is usually a form of legitimisation of ones own authority that sees some dismiss organised forces as not being 'proper' armies. In other words by doing this they are not recognising an ethnic group for example. The Irish example is obvious but also in places such as the Balkans and former USSR.

riffmongous · 18-07-2014 11:29pm

The position of the Irish Army is especially hypocritical considering the anti-Treaty forces actually tried to fight conventionally in the first stage of the Civil War, only switching to the previous Irish Republican 'Army' flying column tactics a few weeks after those instructions.

Manach · 18-07-2014 11:50pm

Adding my 2c, on the Confederates from my reading of Grant and the times, at the Courthouse at Apptomox the "Rebel" side were accorded full military honours. As for the international law aspect (as an academic subject rather fun) the status of "irregularies" has been been one of flux with international conferences from the 19thC holding them to be able to be shot on sight (France tireurs) to a more vague notion of some form of protection for such in the aftermath of WWII [source K. Nabulsi, Traditions of War].
As for legitimacy - Cicero put it best, in times of war laws are silent.

jonniebgood1 · 19-07-2014 2:39pm

Whilst not taking the following articles side I do quote relevant section in relation to armed resistance to occupation.

Unlike terrorism which is universally deemed as criminal (no such thing as “legal terrorism”), other forms of political violence are not only acceptable, but are fully legal. This obviously includes military acts of self-defense (i.e. the right to resist an aggressor, defend ones territorial integrity, et cetera) as well as UN Security Council sanctioned Chapter VII actions (the war making powers of the UNSC, as employed in South Korea or in Bosnia-Herzegovina). However, among these legal forms of violence there is also the right to use force in the struggle for “liberation from colonial and foreign domination”. To quote United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” (3)

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4) http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-legitimate-armed-resistance-vs-terrorism/5084

This leads to a question -if armed resistance is legal are those who provide this resistance not entitled to be called an Army. The more attention this is given it seems to be a question of perspective rather than any hard and agreed rules.

Owryan · 21-07-2014 2:24pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Plenty.

Grant's approach to fighting the Confederates and his "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender" at Fort Donaldson and subsequent engagements was based on the notion that the Confederates were rebels in insurrection and therefore not entitled to usual protections under the laws of war.

Likewise Sherman's "March to the Sea" was justified using the same approach, and the legal justification Emancipation Proclamation was based in part on the idea that the Confederacy was not a separate entity and could still be legislated for from Washington.

Why were officers offered parole and prisoner exchanges permitted and a formal system for administering them established?. Wouldn't that not have afforded a degree of legitimacy to the CSA.

Likewise was Sherman's march to the sea not just the adherence to total war. Both Sherman and Grant believed that the very nature of modern war meant that the factory supplying the bullet or the farmer supplying the food were just as legitimate a target as the reb in the field who used them.

Jawgap · 21-07-2014 3:42pm

Owryan wrote: »

Why were officers offered parole and prisoner exchanges permitted and a formal system for administering them established?. Wouldn't that not have afforded a degree of legitimacy to the CSA.

yes, but that was very much at the discretion of the Union - Buckner (a class mate of Grant at West Point) was not impressed at being so emphatically (and politely!) rebuffed when he asked for terms and an armstice.

Owryan wrote: »

Likewise was Sherman's march to the sea not just the adherence to total war. Both Sherman and Grant believed that the very nature of modern war meant that the factory supplying the bullet or the farmer supplying the food were just as legitimate a target as the reb in the field who used them.

Not so much. Sherman's March to the Sea is held up as an example of total war (even though the phrase wouldn't be coined until 1935) but in reality it was a shift in his logistics base.

Once he seized Altanta he was faced with occupying a city at the end of a supply line that stretched back to Nashville with a hostile army of 40,000 under Hood and an independent cavalry force under Bedford-Forrest operating in his vicinity.

He had to detach Schofield to Knoxville to protect that city in case Hood went that way and Thomas was sent to Nashville to reinforce the army's main supply depot.

The choices were withdraw or shift his logistics base to the coast from where he could strike north to meet up with Grant in Virginia.

His orders for the march prohibited the targeting of non-combatants. Soldiers were also prohibited from entering houses and committing trespass but they were allowed take crops and stock from fields in sight of their camps. Working animals could also be taken to replace casualties.

He burned cotton, but spared the cotton in the state capital, taking them at their word it would not be put to military use, then they trashed the city. He also ignored the Confederacy’s largest gunpowder mill (in Augusta), just off his line of march and Macon where there was a substantial ordnance industry. And he refused battle several times with substantial, though smaller Confederate forces.

There was a lot of damaged done to property, but few were the number of non-combatant deaths.

There are much better examples of 'total war' in the American Civil War - Sheridan’s Valley Campaign (in the Shenandoah) or Sherman’s subsequent march through the Carolinas.

steddyeddy · 23-07-2014 8:07pm

tac foley wrote: »

Dear Mr Johnniebegood1 - notwithstanding your position of moderator, I'm at a complete loss to figure out how you might confuse a sworn member of the official military forces of a nation, that is to say, the Irish Free State Army, with a group of disaffected civilians who called themselves an army and elect to fight the legal armed forces of their own country.

I did not say that 'flying columns' were typical civilans - you just did.

However, they were obviously NOT 'typical civilians', but an organised and militarily-trained group of people operating in opposition to the sworn military of the Irish Free State, who WERE, by definition and the generally accepted international status of legally-founded national Armed forces, actually correctly called soldiers.

This 'discussion', I feel, will end badly, with you exercising your moderator status to close it up, but there is an immense gulf between those who ARE soldiers, and those who, without benefit of the uniform and international recognition and conformal status, nevertheless CALL themselves soldiers. That is not simply my opinion, it is a matter of fact, if you care to look up the definition of each word in whatever dictionary you choose to read.

tac

Are you inquiring about the definition of the word soldier or what being a soldier actually means?

pO1Neil · 28-07-2014 1:50pm

tac foley wrote: »

Regardless of what they actually called themselves, the IRA WERE civilians.

I assume that you mean civilians who were not actively taking any part in the Civil War as combatants?

tac

The IRA was the Army of the self-declared Irish Republic state that declared independence from the UK in 1919. And if you didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Irish Republic I suppose then you would called them irregulars, guerrillas, rebels, the resistance etc....

tac foley · 28-07-2014 2:30pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

The IRA was the Army of the self-declared Irish Republic state that declared independence from the UK in 1919. And if you didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Irish Republic I suppose then you would called them irregulars, guerrillas, rebels, the resistance etc....

...who then, after the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922, opposed the lawful government of the country in a civil war, engaging with the national army of that Irish Free State, and did it in civilian clothing. My Uncle Gus was one of them, and my dad was one of the soldiers in the Free State Army.

I'm not about to engage you, or anybody else in any further argument - you yourself wrote the words 'irregulars, guerillas, rebels, the resistance etc.'

There are many on this site from whom that civil war has not yet ended satisfactorily, that is to say, in THEIR favour, and any more like this will simply add fuel to a fire that has not really died down in the last 92 years.

tac

tac foley · 28-07-2014 2:32pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you inquiring about the definition of the word soldier or what being a soldier actually means?

I believe that I know what being a soldier 'actually means'. After all, I WAS one for thirty-three years.:P

By that definition, I also know what a terrorist is, and for the same reason.

tac

Jawgap · 28-07-2014 2:34pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

The IRA was the Army of the self-declared Irish Republic state that declared independence from the UK in 1919. And if you didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Irish Republic I suppose then you would called them irregulars, guerrillas, rebels, the resistance etc....

That being the case, then why was it necessary to negotiate the Anglo-Irish Treaty? If, as you suggest, the 'Irish Republic' was legitimate (as in existed in legal and actual terms) then why would a treaty be necessary?

What of the 'Munster Republic'? What status was that as a self-declared entity?

What about Costello's declaration of the republic and the subsequent passing of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 - were they unnecessary?

Jawgap · 28-07-2014 2:43pm

Militia would be a reasonable description of the IRA in the era of the War of Independence and Civil War.

Post that period, terrorists would be more accurate.

tac foley · 28-07-2014 2:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Militia would be a reasonable description of the IRA in the era of the War of Independence and Civil War.

I disagree.

During the WoI they were rebels - like it or not, there WAS a legitimate national government in place, and they were fighting it.

During the Civil War they were rebels, rebelling against the lawfully in-placed government of the country.

THIS is what a militia is -

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. [WHO calls them out? Answer - the lawful government of the nation.]

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
Agreed.

3. all able-bodied males eligible by law for military service.
Agreed, except that in the case of the IRA, the 'law' had nothing to do with them.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Might THIS be your 'get-out' clause in this case?

[1580–90; < Latin mīlitia soldiery =mīlit-, s. of mīles soldier + -ia -ia]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

tac

Jawgap · 28-07-2014 3:17pm

From reading the various bits in militias, it seems there is a spectrum - from the more loosely organised units deemed (somehow) to represent a population or group of the population (e.g. a workers' militia), to something more formal mobilised by a government (local or national) or the sovereign for a fixed period, usually to cover an emergency situation.

Options 1,2 & 3, imo, are the more formalised type of militia, Option 4 would be the only one the IRA of that period could use to justify a 'militia' tag.

pO1Neil · 29-07-2014 6:17am

tac foley wrote: »

...who then, after the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922, opposed the lawful government of the country in a civil war, engaging with the national army of that Irish Free State, and did it in civilian clothing. My Uncle Gus was one of them, and my dad was one of the soldiers in the Free State Army.

I'm not about to engage you, or anybody else in any further argument - you yourself wrote the words 'irregulars, guerillas, rebels, the resistance etc.'

There are many on this site from whom that civil war has not yet ended satisfactorily, that is to say, in THEIR favour, and any more like this will simply add fuel to a fire that has not really died down in the last 92 years.

tac

Well I was referring to them as people who didn't recognize the Irish Republic of 1919 - 21 (mainly the British government) What would you consider the Dutch, French, Polish etc... Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe? Would you class them as 'irregulars, guerillas, rebels etc... or terrorists as the Nazi's called them?

pedroeibar1 · 29-07-2014 7:09am

pO1Neil wrote: »

What would you consider the Dutch, French, Polish etc... Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe? Would you class them as 'irregulars, guerillas, rebels etc... or terrorists as the Nazi's called them?

I call them by the name they used themselves - Resistance. Your comparison is not valid as Germany had invaded the Netherlands, France, Poland, etc. within past months and the rulers were not democratically elected.

jonniebgood1 · 29-07-2014 7:18am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I call them by the name they used themselves - Resistance. Your comparison is not valid as Germany had invaded the Netherlands, France, Poland, etc. within past months and the rulers were not democratically elected.

By 1920 the rulers in Ireland were not democratically representative. Neither were they native so if these are 2 qualifying factors the comparison seems good to me.
???

Jawgap · 29-07-2014 8:52am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By 1920 the rulers in Ireland were not democratically representative. Neither were they native so if these are 2 qualifying factors the comparison seems good to me.
???

What about post the Treaty then - was the Free State government not representative? And if it wasn't why was the IRA reduced to 90% of its pre-Treaty strength by people leaving?

Incidentally, if the IRA was an 'army' what uniform did it wear? What was its rank structure? How were its support corps (logistics, medical, engineers, singals etc) organised? And why did it distinguish between 'reliable,' 'unreliable' and 'active' men?

tac foley · 29-07-2014 9:09am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I call them by the name they used themselves - Resistance. Your comparison is not valid as Germany had invaded the Netherlands, France, Poland, etc. within past months and the rulers were not democratically elected.

Reading this post ends my input. I'll let you real Irishmen argue about how legal - in internationally agreed terms - the IRA was. I note with interest that your own government has proscribed it as an illegal organisation.

tac

When is an army an 'Army' in History

Comments