[minidazzler]

This has been something I have thought about alot, even something I would love to write a book about if I wasn't a very very lazy person ha.


What if the Aud had made it?
What if the Gun-runners had been competant?

How would the rising have fared should it have had the extra 20,000 rifles, the million rounds, the explosives?

I would love to have all the information of the day really, of what was where and then theorise a battle plan to take over the whole country (as it was back then), but don't know where I could get that information.

So, if the rising had had 20,000 +rifles, how do you think it would have fared?

[HavingCrack]

Townsends book 'Easter:1916, The Irish Rebellion' discusses this hypothetical situation quite well if you're interested.

The 1916 rebels couldn't have won even if the Aud had landed successfully. They had no real strategic plans drawn up for the occupation of the rest of the island outside of Dublin. I think they only had Volunteer regiments active in 19 of the 32 counties anyway. The British army was a far superior fighting force to the Irish Volunteers and would havee beaten them in any 'open warfare' rather than the guerilla style of the War of Independance. Furthermore the rebels had very little support in Ireland until the executions of the Rising leaders so its unlikely they would have garnered much support from the population, especially since so many were fighting in France.

In short no, I don't believe the Rising oculd ever have militarily defeated the British.

[jurgenscarl]

The rebels did not have an efficient organisation to get the rifles or ammunition distributed rapidly around the country to make much of a difference before the British brought in reinforcements and artillery to shell rebel positions in Dublin.
Most of the rifles would have been undoubtedly captured in the aftermath of the Rising and the rest would have ended up in attics and under floorboards or hidden in cowsheds and barns.

The IRA that emerged in 1919 would have had some more fire power but at any one time during the War of Independence there were only a few thousand men available to actually do any really rebelling.
The British flooded the country with thousands of British troops, reinforced wth RIC with the Tans and the Auxillaries and rounded up thousands of republicans. The British had naval vessels, airplanes, tanks, artillery, tanks and armoured cars and were in full control of Dublin, all the major cities and towns and most of the countryside.
By the time De Valera and Collins accepted the truce, the IRA were actually only weeks away from total defeat.
No suprise that Collins signed the Treaty which created the Free State - it was the best deal they were ever going to get.
The anti-Treaty IRA might well have had more firepower at their disposal if the British had not raided their arms years before.
The rebels were always short of ammo and weapons, they were poorly trained and poorly led.
The Free State Army meanwhile swelled in numbers as ex-British officers took charge and ex-British servicemen joined up - the majority of them Catholics who had served in the British Army in the Great War who had supported Redmond and Home Rule - which is more or less what the Free State actually was.
The British supplied the Free State Army with armoured cars, artillery, machine guns and rifles and even airplanes.
The rebels had no chance.
By 1923 if any of the Aud rifle shipment still existed they would have made little or no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties to the thousands killed in the Civil War and more destruction.

[PatsytheNazi]

Originally Posted by jurgenscarl

The rebels did not have an efficient organisation to get the rifles or ammunition distributed rapidly around the country to make much of a difference before the British brought in reinforcements and artillery to shell rebel positions in Dublin.
Most of the rifles would have been undoubtedly captured in the aftermath of the Rising and the rest would have ended up in attics and under floorboards or hidden in cowsheds and barns.

Weapons would have been landed in rural Kerry. Not exactly crawling with British soldiers in 1916. The Brits ddin't exactly do very well capturing the arms from the Howth gun running in 1914 did they. Managed to shoot and bayonet a few civilians on Bachelors Quay that's all

The IRA that emerged in 1919 would have had some more fire power but at any one time during the War of Independence there were only a few thousand men available to actually do any really rebelling.

The reason why they were " only a few thousand men available " was because they had only a few thousand arms - much of which was actually captrued from the British in successful attacks and raids. Shoudl tehy have successfully landed 20,000 arms then they would have had tens of thousands of men - including more weapons captrued from the British.

The British flooded the country with thousands of British troops, reinforced wth RIC with the Tans and the Auxillaries and rounded up thousands of republicans. The British had naval vessels, airplanes, tanks, artillery, tanks and armoured cars and were in full control of Dublin, all the major cities and towns and most of the countryside.

Yes they did but they still had to evcuate 26 of the 32 counties. An IRA tens of thousands strong would undoubtably have seen the entire back of them.

By the time De Valera and Collins accepted the truce, the IRA were actually only weeks away from total defeat.

The whole thing about the IRA being on the verge of defeat is one of the great lies about the period. If they were near total defeat in a few weeks the British would have held out and crushed them, not offer them a truce. Collins said this once as he was politicing trying to sell the treaty and has been seized on ever since by partitionists. By all accounts of senior IRA men, they were only getting stronger not weaker.

No suprise that Collins signed the Treaty which created the Free State - it was the best deal they were ever going to get.

The leading IRA men who led the fight believed entirely different - e.g. Tom Barry, Liam Lynch, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley.

The anti-Treaty IRA might well have had more firepower at their disposal if the British had not raided their arms years before.
The rebels were always short of ammo and weapons, they were poorly trained and poorly led.

The majority of the IRA were against the Treaty, needless to say they had outstanding battle hardened leaders, their defeat had more to do with the con job of lies of the treaty, the boyos at the pulpit denouncements and of course the news papers - who had been vehementally pro British just before the treaty.

The Free State Army meanwhile swelled in numbers as ex-British officers took charge and ex-British servicemen joined up - the majority of them Catholics who had served in the British Army in the Great War who had supported Redmond and Home Rule - which is more or less what the Free State actually was.

Yes their were some ex members of the British army who joined the Free State army, but their also was ex members of the British army who were in the IRA, bitter at the actions of the Tans and been misled by Redmond and co into WW1. Tom Barry been a fine example. The officers of the Free State army were practically all ex IRA men.

The British supplied the Free State Army with armoured cars, artillery, machine guns and rifles and even airplanes.

Agreed, but don't rule out the influence of the the con job of lies of the treaty, the boyos at the pulpit denouncements and of course the news papers.

The rebels had no chance.
By 1923 if any of the Aud rifle shipment still existed they would have made little or no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties to the thousands killed in the Civil War and more destruction.

So if the IRA had 20,000 rifles plus machine guns and explosives it " no real impact except to inflict a few hundred more casualties " ......

[PatsytheNazi]

Originally Posted by HavingCrack

Townsends book 'Easter:1916, The Irish Rebellion' discusses this hypothetical situation quite well if you're interested.

The 1916 rebels couldn't have won even if the Aud had landed successfully. They had no real strategic plans drawn up for the occupation of the rest of the island outside of Dublin. I think they only had Volunteer regiments active in 19 of the 32 counties anyway. The British army was a far superior fighting force to the Irish Volunteers and would havee beaten them in any 'open warfare' rather than the guerilla style of the War of Independance. Furthermore the rebels had very little support in Ireland until the executions of the Rising leaders so its unlikely they would have garnered much support from the population, especially since so many were fighting in France.

In short no, I don't believe the Rising oculd ever have militarily defeated the British.

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

[jurgenscarl]

Originally Posted by PatsytheNazi

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance - a Mauser or Lee-Enfield or comparable bolt-action repeating rifle from the WW1 era can hit targets at a range of hundreds of yards in skilled hands but in unskilled hands would be practically useless except maybe as a club.
It's no good being patriotic if you are no match for trained soldiers.
Only a handful of IRA units who had anything like the discipline and training of a regular British military unit and only a few IRA officers had military experience.
Tom Barry and other commanders managed to pull off some brilliant ambushes but that was it.
The IRA might be lucky to pick off a soldier or two before they were forced to scatter or risk capture.
Even so the British had superior numbers, they had tanks, armoured cars with mounted machine guns, cavalry, artillery, naval vessels to bombard cities and towns and airplanes.
The IRA agreed to a truce because the British offered them a political path and a Free State or total defeat.
The British agreed to the truce because they were giving the Irish more or less the same deal as Home Rule under the new Free State. They could get their troops out and leave the Irish to administer their own affairs while remaining in the Commonwealth. Problem solved.
At no time during the conflict did the British ever lose control of major population centres or lose control of the country side. The patrolled aggressively and made it harder and harder for the few active IRA flying columns to operate.
Thousands of men were rounded up in prison camps.
If the IRA had fought large scale battles with the British they would have been wiped out completely.

[PatsytheNazi]

Originally Posted by jurgenscarl

There never were 20,000 trained IRA men who could have used those rifles. There is no point in handing a rifle to a man who does not know anything about shooting accurately at long distance - a Mauser or Lee-Enfield or comparable bolt-action repeating rifle from the WW1 era can hit targets at a range of hundreds of yards in skilled hands but in unskilled hands would be practically useless except maybe as a club.

" unskilled hands " The so called unskilled hands didn't do too bad on Easter Week 1916 and other gun battles around the country now didn't they

It's no good being patriotic if you are no match for trained soldiers. Only a handful of IRA units who had anything like the discipline and training of a regular British military unit and only a few IRA officers had military experience.
Tom Barry and other commanders managed to pull off some brilliant ambushes but that was it.
The IRA might be lucky to pick off a soldier or two before they were forced to scatter or risk capture.

The proved more than a match for " for trained soldiers " as above. Now if the had 20,000 ( plus how many captured weapons this would have yeilded ), they have done as good if not even better than another bunch of untrained - the Boers. And as for the " discipline and training of a regular British military unit ", at times they were often drunk as looting pubs and shops was their common practise. And I'm not just talking about the Tans, read Tom Barry and the Essex regiement.

Even so the British had superior numbers, they had tanks, armoured cars with mounted machine guns, cavalry, artillery, naval vessels to bombard cities and towns and airplanes.
The IRA agreed to a truce because the British offered them a political path and a Free State or total defeat.

IRA were never close to defeat, the carrot of the treaty split the movement instead of allowing the IRA to develop and international pressure on Britain. It was a political stroke not a miltiary one which led to the crime of partition.

The British agreed to the truce because they were giving the Irish more or less the same deal as Home Rule under the new Free State. They could get their troops out and leave the Irish to administer their own affairs while remaining in the Commonwealth. Problem solved.

The Free Sate was vastly differnet from Home Rule . The FS had it's own army, police, taxation powers etc. It was a de facto independent state, with a imperial few bells and whistles, the Oath, the Viceroy etc

At no time during the conflict did the British ever lose control of major population centres or lose control of the country side. The patrolled aggressively and made it harder and harder for the few active IRA flying columns to operate.
Thousands of men were rounded up in prison camps.
If the IRA had fought large scale battles with the British they would have been wiped out completely.

Well the IRA couldn't fight large scale battles as they hadn't the chance to obtain 20,000 or more rifles !!!

And the Brits were far from being able to throw their weight around as you'd like to make out. Firstly their was Irish America ( which was criplling British trade with Britain by the dockers and Teamsters unions refusing to handle British goods ) and it's political clout, secondly the British public which was war weary after WW1 and certainly would not have supported the introduction of Boer War type war crimes, and thridly international opinion which was totally on Ireland's side.

[PatsytheNazi]

Just occured to me, the two of us are going completely off topic here and have been since his post #3............... Ooops

[xflyer]

Guns are useless without ammunition. The British had an endless supply. The Volunteers didn't. Pearse and many other of the leaders knew they couldn't win but chose the blood sacrifice. It led to our independance of sorts but mostly it condemmed us to 90 years of misrule by the sort of people who still sit in Leinster house.

The truth was that we would have got Home Rule after the war anyway. That in turn would have led to Dominion status and then the Republic eventually. All without the nonsense that went on. We might even have a United Ireland by now because the Unionists would have little to be paranoid about. My own opinion was that the British got off lightly by allowing the Free State. They no longer had to pay for Ireland but they still benefited from trading with us. They should have subsidised us for years to make up for the exploitation of centuries.

We got the worst sort of independance far too soon. A poor compromise that continues to bedevil us.

[HavingCrack]

Originally Posted by PatsytheNazi

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like British pluck now is there The British had up to 20,000, the IRA about 1,250. Now if their had been 20,000 IRA volunteers - it would have been a very, very different story.

Also, the IRA surrended not due to British pluck and military capacity but to stop the civilian death toll which was largely been caused by the British navy and artillery. And if the 1916 rising wasn't open warfare then what is ?

What are you attempting to imply with that comment that I've highlighted????? I get the impression that it was directed at me personally but if I'm wrong I apologise.

The Irish Volunteers of the 1916 Rising and the IRA of the War of Independance were two very different organisations so its misleading to refer to the Irish Volunteers of the Rising as the IRA.

The Irish Volunteers could never have amassed 20,000 skilled soldiers in the field at the time of the Easter Rising, the only had about 12,000 members for a start.

I'm not attempting to deny 1916 wasn't open warfare but the British would have militarily defeated the Irish Volunteers and Citizen Army eventually as the rebels were never capable of driving the British out of Dublin.

[PatsytheNazi]

Originally Posted by xflyer

Guns are useless without ammunition. The British had an endless supply. The Volunteers didn't. Pearse and many other of the leaders knew they couldn't win but chose the blood sacrifice. It led to our independance of sorts but mostly it condemmed us to 90 years of misrule by the sort of people who still sit in Leinster house.

The Germans sent a million rounds of ammo with the rifles. If the weapons and ammo had been successfully landed and distributed and put to good effect, the Germans, no doubt would have been sending even greater supplies coming. Sure if they had tried to fight a conventional war they would have been eventually over run, but I would have thought that the use of the tatics of the Boers was what they had in mind in the long term and the Boers had a damn good stab at beating them. But like the thread title, it's all an if........

The truth was that we would have got Home Rule after the war anyway. That in turn would have led to Dominion status and then the Republic eventually. All without the nonsense that went on. We might even have a United Ireland by now because the Unionists would have little to be paranoid about. My own opinion was that the British got off lightly by allowing the Free State. They no longer had to pay for Ireland but they still benefited from trading with us. They should have subsidised us for years to make up for the exploitation of centuries.

We got the worst sort of independance far too soon. A poor compromise that continues to bedevil us.

No offence, we're wandering off topic again. 1919 onwards, treaty etc

[PatsytheNazi]

One of the interesting comments I heard about the Rising and Arthur Griffith and Sinn Fein was " Sinn Fein did not make the Rising, but the Rising made Sinn Fein ".

[Grizzly 45]

Not to mind those rifles,were already obsolete scrap by ww1.They were captured Mauser single shot rifles by the Germans,who had orginally sold them to the Russians in 189somthing.They were NOT mauser 98K models.A common misconception.Hence the Germans sent them,as they couldnt afford to equip the Irish with state of the art equipment,or even a few competant German officers.The Imperial command looked at it as some mischeif,If the Irish succeeeded ,well and good.It would pullmaybe a few divisions off the western front to sort out the Irish.If not,not much lost.

" unskilled hands " The so called unskilled hands didn't do too bad on Easter Week 1916 and other gun battles around the country now didn't they

Well, if you call a static defence of a bunch of isolated from each other buildings,where you allow yourselves to be trapped with no viable escape plans.You fail to disrupt or control the communications with the UK or the rest of Ireland or prevent reinforcements arriving from the Curragh,you dont plan on thaing the magazine fort in the Phoenix park,and two of your heroic freedom fighters shoot a ten year old kid in the back.Not to mind you fail to bring the citizens of Dublin with you with you .You are lead by no one with any great military training,but by an ego manic who is into blood scarfice.Yeah ..a great sucess!!
As for the Boer tactics.It was the British that beat them by the use of concentration camps and forcing the Boers to operate in a vaccum,of no resupply or a friendly poulation.It wouldnt have taken them that long to figure out that tactic would have worked fine in W Cork either.A patrol gets ambushed..Burn out four villages in the area,execute every man and boy in the district and and remove the women and children to a holding pen somwhere.Those kinds of reprisel activities were much favoured by the people who were under the second part of your signature in the 1940s in the countries they visited in Europe.Wouldnt have mattered if the IRA had been effective then.They would have been demoralised totally,not to mind the civil war and war of independance really only happened in 5 of 32 counties of Ireland.What were the other27 doing to support their independance??The British calculated that it would have required 250,000 full time troops and ancillary,plus naval ,airforce,etc to subjugate Ireland if the Irish hadnt signed the treaty.David Lyod George told them this was their stark choice.Sign and gain a freedom to be free or face a total and bloody destruction.A bunch of old mausers and what not wouldnt have stopped it.


And the Brits were far from being able to throw their weight around as you'd like to make out. Firstly their was Irish America ( which was criplling British trade with Britain by the dockers and Teamsters unions refusing to handle British goods ) and it's political clout, secondly the British public which was war weary after WW1 and certainly would not have supported the introduction of Boer War type war crimes, and thridly international opinion which was totally on Ireland's side.

As if Britan would be really too botherd.They still had an Empire where the Sun more or less still never set,it could still produce anything the US could.Nor was the US very intrested in European affairs as it was becoming isolationist and looking into the Depression.So what a bunch of Irishmen did in NYC or New Jersey on the docks was being monitored already by an up and coming J Edgar Hoover.
As for international opinion condeming Britans actions,what sanctions could be taken by whom?The leauge of Nations was just a talking shop with no policing powersor sanctioning powers.It was really effective in stopping the British with the Amistar massacre in India,Mussolini stomping around Libya and Ethopia and Adolf helping himself to half Europe.
War weary Britan would only have been too happyto have been able to boost up its forces to go Paddy bashing again.It was a job wasnt it??
Why do you think the Auxies and Tans were over here in the 1st place??

In the end,it was proably just as well the aud was scuttled.It wouldnt have speed up anything and proably only prolonged things.

[judestynes]

Some else had started a thread similar to this in the after hours section of the site it was in fact a poll and the crux of it was who thought the easter rising was a terrorist act or fight for freedom. Usually they are one and the same depending on what side of the fence your on. An awful lot of what if's came up in the thread, this was my contribution [ Ireland... easter week. Perhaps if the Irish republican forces had made their stand in London, it might be considered terrorism, their biggest mistake was assuming that Dublin meant as much to the crown as it did to themselves. It would be hard to imagine a warship being sailed up the Thames and systematicly levelling the city. The crown forces had no compulsions at all about shelling or machine gunning the civilian population until unconditional surrender was delivered by the republicans, a poilcy they continued I might add during ww2, by indiscriminately bombing German cities years after the lufwaffe ceased bombing British cities. So in conclusion, there were terrorists operating in Dublin during easter week, but they weren't Irish.]

I think an additional 20,000 rifles wouldn't have made any difference, not in easter week of that year. Perhaps the following year when the volunteers were suffiecently trained. If there was a force of 20,000+ volunteers of the same quality and calibre that were out in easter week 1916 would have made a serious impact but as I've said, landing the weapons a few weeks before the rising wouldn't have mattered much.

[tac foley]

Originally Posted by judestynes

It would be hard to imagine a warship being sailed up the Thames and systematicly levelling the city. The crown forces had no compulsions at all about shelling or machine gunning the civilian population until unconditional surrender was delivered by the republicans, a poilcy they continued I might add during ww2, by indiscriminately bombing German cities years after the lufwaffe ceased bombing British cities. So in conclusion, there were terrorists operating in Dublin during easter week, but they weren't Irish.]

There is just so much wrong with this diatribe that I hardly know where to begin, except, for a start, to recommend that you look up the difference between 'compulsion' and 'compunction'.

A 'warship' sailing up the Liffey and 'systematicly [sic]' levelling the city? Details, please.

Also, please note that those taking on the Crown Forces in Dublin that Easter were, as far as the British were concerned, ALL civilians.

Who, I would remind you, were jeered, spat on and deriled by their fellow-Irishmen as they were marched through the streets for bringing such devastation to Dublin.

As for the WW2 allies' treatment of nazi Germany as the '...indiscriminate bombing of German cities', please let me know how this applies to the Easter Rising. AFAIK there was no bombing of Dublin by the British or Americans. Tell a survivor of Coventry that the bombing of nazi Germany would be 'minimal to avoid delicate sensitivities', or the relatives of any of the more than 40,000 dead who died in the luftwaffe's blitz of London. There is no way on earth that you can begin to compare the Easter Rising - a VERY localised affair - with WW2. And you can be sure that the bombing of nazi Germany was not indiscriminate - it was all very deliberate. It is thanks to the effectiveness of that bombing that you are able to post your opinion on this site. Without it you would be either speaking German, or more likely, Russian. Or, if you were Jewish, disabled, mentally-ill or a gypsy, you wouldn't be here at all.

tac