IRA activity in Laois/Offaly

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Derfil

Queens county for starters. Biffos would go hand in hand with the queens.

PatsytheNazi

Veles wrote: »

Would it be true to say the IRA during the war of independence weren't as active in counties Laois,Offaly compared to the flying columns in Tipperary,Cork etc?
And what reasons would be for this rather inactivity?

From what I remember from reading in books by Tom Barry, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley etc, they blamed lack of activity in certain areas to poor local leadership rather than the volunteers themselves. I think in Guerilla Days in Ireland Tom Barry writes how local leaders in these quiet areas were more interested in making speeches and getting charged under some public order act* and sentenced to 2 or 3 months and then coming out proclaiming themselves as ' heros ' :rolleyes: So this was probably the case in Laois/Offaly.

*Noticeably this never applied to British army officers and unionist politicans inciting the loyalists in the north east of the country ofcourse.

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

*Noticeably this never applied to British army officers and unionist politicans inciting the loyalists in the north east of the country ofcourse.

Was this common- violence following speeches by British Army officers? I am aware of much sectarianism (harland & wolff, etc) but would like to read more on the mentioned incitement speeches. I thought most of the violence in the north was reactionary, i.e. reprisals for actions by the opposing faction.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

cormacocomhrai

Aquila wrote: »

I know I'm bringing up an old thread again,but I often wonder why the local commanders never took the initiative against the British compared to other areas in the midlands such as Longford.

Would you? Outgunned in a major way, effectively untrained and not being able to rely on a large section of the local population not to betray you. Across the three southern provinces the five most active counties of Munster (non-Waterford) were exceptions not the norm. Maybe the question should be why were they so violent? The question is basically why was the midlads so average in terms of violence?Even Dublin county was quiet enough when you cut out the urban area.

Different reasons in different areas for a limit in the level of activity during the period including lack of local support, poor quality training, poverty, terrain, a late start and bad luck, a lack of a tradition of resistance to British rule.
While a combination of the above factors would influence the level of violence ultimately a lot of it came down to leaders. Areas could become increasingly active even if they didn't reach west Munster levels of violence. An example of that is Donegal where the IRA campaign really came to life in 1921 and the same happened in West Mayo.

There's also a danger in judging the War of Independence as a body count competition between different counties but the military side was only aspect of the conflict. In areas of the west where there was little violent IRA activity they were still effectively in control of vast areas in the summer of 1920 because of local support, the effectiveness of police boycotts and the collapse of the local judicial system and basically didn't need to kill people, police or otherwise, to enforce their local authority. That wouldn't hold as much in the midlands but it would have been an issue in parts of it.

Offaly would have been more violent that Laois as it happens. There as a couple of ambushes in Offaly where the police suffered fatalities and a major attack on Clara barracks so it wasn't the case that it was completely inactive militarily.

Farmer Pudsey

Laois/Offaly is relatively flat and good land the villages were close to each other not like West Cork where you have sparsly populated country. This allowed Tom Barry to move his flying column around, the same with Tipperary they had access to the Galtees as had the East Limerick column. Also not every area had a commander as resourceful and as lucky as Tom Barry.
The only sucessful flying coloumn in the midlands was the north Longford column led by Sean McEoin. It was based in north longford which is an area of poor land that was not densely populated.

cormacocomhrai

Off itself flat land wasn't a reason for a lack of military activity though. East Limerick is flat and had one of the biggest ambushes in Dromkeen. North Galway is quite flat and was probably the area with the most prolonged activity in Co. Galway.

The idea of the population being dispersed etc. is an interesting point.

Wicklow is mountainous with a fairly dispersed population and saw little acitivity.

Also nothing to stop people attacking or sniping barracks in flat land.

It basically comes down to leadership again as you pointed out about Tom Barry.

Fenian Army

Much of it was down, as has already been said, to the local commanders.

I suggest reading Ernie O Malleys book, On another mans wound, basically it seems that areas elected the wrong people as commanders, people full of talk and lacking nerve, popular folk who would then do fcuk all shaming everyone under their command with their ineptitude and cowardice.

cormacocomhrai

Discipline has something to do with it as well and whether members of the volunteers in the early days saw themselves as revolutionaries or soldiers etc. There was a tension between in the volunteers between the gunmen and officers. It has to be remembered as well that an awful lot of the early activity was activists defying local leadership as well as, sometimes, the National leadership. You had gunmen in Munster like Breen and Treacy and Michael Brennan in Clare who were hauled across the coals by GHQ. Because these fellas had the early start they were then in a better position later to up the ante. In other areas where they were possibly under better central control they didn't have the same early start, found it harder to get arms and were then berated for not being as active as areas that were problematic for GHQ earlier. Again the question is why did Munster prove so violent not why other counties weren't as violent. Munster is the exception not the norm.

In the early days people often elected prominent local people for reasons of prestige. A natural enough reaction in a movement trying to increase its popularity. A bit unfair though to describe someone as being cowardly when anyone of us could have behaved in the same way. From 1920 if you were prominent in the volunteers/ Sinn Féin there was a strong chance that your house would be burned, you could look forward to a severe beating or even torture if arrested and while there might be a thousand well-armed enemies in your area you could muster ten rifles (with ten or twenty rounds per rifle) and an assortment of shot guns. Easy to let the fear catch a hold of you in that situation.

As for ineptitude as more local studies are carried out we'll see far more cases of that even in areas that were active. Drink itself doesn't seem to have been a problem in many cases but inadaquate storing of arms, poor positioning of ambushes, premature firing, loss of nerve in gun fights will come to light for a lot of the ambushes.

Fenian Army

Its not harsh, when they sat on their hands and did not fight despite having the capability to do so and hid at home with their families while the British were able to concentrate their forces in areas where men fought as a result of the aforementioned inactivity it was simply cowardly.

Men of talk, not action, crippled the republican movement.

cormacocomhrai

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its not harsh, .

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It's fair enough for Tom Barry or Ernie O'Malley to make that call. I wouldn't be comfortable making that criticism never having been under fire.

Your right about the consequences of it for the active areas. GHQ recognised it and tried to share the burden.

Fenian Army

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It's fair enough for Tom Barry or Ernie O'Malley to make that call. I wouldn't be comfortable making that criticism never having been under fire.

Your right about the consequences of it for the active areas. GHQ recognised it and tried to share the burden.

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

cormacocomhrai

Fenian Army wrote: »

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

That's a fair argument about stepping down as opposed to being cowardly. The ironic thing is though by stepping down they would have been putting themselves in far greater danger. British intelligence would still, most likely, have identified you as the local leader, if there was republican activity you would still have been a target and what was keeping you safe, the local network of sympathisers, would no longer be willing to provide you with shelter.

There was a local commandant in Galway who was, at one point, on the run from both the British (who identified him as being a dangerous gunman) and the IRA (who thought he was a British informer).

Fenian Army

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

That's a fair argument about stepping down as opposed to being cowardly. The ironic thing is though by stepping down they would have been putting themselves in far greater danger. British intelligence would still, most likely, have identified you as the local leader, if there was republican activity you would still have been a target and what was keeping you safe, the local network of sympathisers, would no longer be willing to provide you with shelter.

There was a local commandant in Galway who was, at one point, on the run from both the British (who identified him as being a dangerous gunman) and the IRA (who thought he was a British informer).

As I said, they were cowards.

cormacocomhrai

I phrased the first line of that badly. I'd agree officers could have stepped aside as opposed to your argument about them being cowardly, full stop.

As I said I'd be very reluctant to accuse anybody of being cowardly for not drawing the Auxiliaries down on themselves or their families.

The Volunteers themselves could also be forgiving towards people who lost their nerve. Before the Clifden ambush in March 1921 in Galway one volunteer who was to take part in an ambush on a police patrol lost his nerve and ran. He came back to the column, admitted what had happened was allowed back into the group, seemingly without comment. Was an active volunteer all the way up until his arrest in the Civil War.

Volunteers left a flying column in Monaghan and one of GHQ's policies was that men could resign "without further comment". That said the IRA in Tipperary were talking about shooting bad cases of cowardice and the IRA were actively opposed to emigration.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its not harsh, when they sat on their hands and did not fight despite having the capability to do so and hid at home with their families while the British were able to concentrate their forces in areas where men fought as a result of the aforementioned inactivity it was simply cowardly.

Men of talk, not action, crippled the republican movement.

Fenian Army wrote: »

As I said, they were cowards.

When they had capability (weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons) they could use them. Where IRA units did not have this capability most engaged in other forms of disruption which they were capable of. This includes destruction of roads, phonelines etc. Mostly the result of this was engaging their enemy to deploy troops throughout the countryside as opposed to allowing them to concentrate fully on the busier areas.

In its most basic form these people had very little means to make a difference in their era. Despite this they did what they could to disrupt the British army on behalf of their country. They had a command structure and whilst there work can be criticised for not being as noteworthy as that of Tom Barry, it is another thing entirely to call them cowards. Barry and O'Malley wrote of the larger engagements but you need to look in greater detail at local histories to see detail on this type of civil disruption. Saying they 'hid at home' disrespects these people and shows a lack of understanding of what they did and what they could have done.

Suffice to say, I don't agree with your sweeping statement that these people were cowards.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

When they had capability (weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons) they could use them. Where IRA units did not have this capability most engaged in other forms of disruption which they were capable of. This includes destruction of roads, phonelines etc. Mostly the result of this was engaging their enemy to deploy troops throughout the countryside as opposed to allowing them to concentrate fully on the busier areas.

In its most basic form these people had very little means to make a difference in their era. Despite this they did what they could to disrupt the British army on behalf of their country. They had a command structure and whilst there work can be criticised for not being as noteworthy as that of Tom Barry, it is another thing entirely to call them cowards. Barry and O'Malley wrote of the larger engagements but you need to look in greater detail at local histories to see detail on this type of civil disruption. Saying they 'hid at home' disrespects these people and shows a lack of understanding of what they did and what they could have done.

Suffice to say, I don't agree with your sweeping statement that these people were cowards.

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

cormacocomhrai

Trenching roads was a risky business as well at times. Houses nearby could easily be targeted if they were close to the trench. In my grandparents part of west clare a road was deliberately trenched beside a house that had given tea to the police during an eviction. The idea being that the household would then be compelled by the police to fill the trench.


On a couple of occasions lads trenching roads were shot dead. (Cases in Mayo and Cork). In one case in Waterford people were killed when a previously trenched road was being retrenched. British forces had filled in the trench but had also left explosives in it.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

They all had the same leader.
This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

An Irish version of gallipoli?

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They all had the same leader.
This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

An Irish version of gallipoli?

So in your version of history they didnt do anything because they didnt have enough weapons?

That is just bollocks.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

So in your version of history they didnt do anything because they didnt have enough weapons?

That is just bollocks.

Incorrect- I said "weapons & knowledge of how to use weapons" set out the capability of an IRA unit.

You referenced Ernie O'Malley already. You should read him again if you don't accept that weapons availiability and ability to work these weapons was not important. You have already called some level of IRA volunteers "cowards" so I'm not so sure I like your version of history either.



You also made reference to people who were all talk and no action before you then state

If I ever found myself in that position were I didnt have the bottle I would step down.

So I will allow others reading the thread decide what is " just bollocks".

Fenian Army

Why would you twist what I said?
I never said it wasn't important.

This sounds like you are saying that the IRA local commanders should have sent men into engagements against the British army despite lack of weapons.

That's what you said... I never said anything like that.

No wonder the best posters have left this forum with this nonsense.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Why would you twist what I said?
I never said it wasn't important.



That's what you said... I never said anything like that.

No wonder the best posters have left this forum with this nonsense.

Are you not one of "the best posters"?

Seriously lad- grow up.

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are you not one of "the best posters"?

Seriously lad- grow up.

I was referring to the likes of Marchdub.

Bit rich coming from yourself.

Anyway, I see little point continuing this conversation.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Anyway, I see little point continuing this conversation.

At least we agree on something

Gee Bag

Fenian Army wrote: »

They disrespected themselves with their unwillingness to engage the enemy. The IRA in inactive areas, ones which done very little, even didn't do much "disruption" were hamstrung by cowardly commanders.

Not the mens fault they were allowed to engage the enemy, I'm not calling the rank and file cowards.

Lions led by donkeys is it? Now where have I heard that before?

Labelling those who were involved in the IRA leadership in the less active areas as cowards is simplistic and crass.

The lack of activity during the war of independence in certain areas was primarily due to the quality of the local leadership and the inability of GHQ to provide effective training and weapons. Though it was in gestation for quite some time, the actual War of Independence was over pretty quickly. There simply wasn't sufficent time or resources to recruit effective units in all areas.

Laois/Offaly is relatively flat and good land the villages were close to each other not like West Cork where you have sparsly populated country. This allowed Tom Barry to move his flying column around, the same with Tipperary they had access to the Galtees as had the East Limerick column. Also not every area had a commander as resourceful and as lucky as Tom Barry.
The only sucessful flying coloumn in the midlands was the north Longford column led by Sean McEoin. It was based in north longford which is an area of poor land that was not densely populated.

I'm not convinced by this theory about population density and topography. There are extensive areas of upland in Laois/Offaly (the Slieve Blooms and to the south of Portlaoise) as well as large tracts of bog which were relativley inaccessible at this time. The land in north county Longford is of marginal quality but is pretty level and serviced by an extensive road network (less bog than the rest of the county) allowing for rapid transport of troops and police. In addition there was a major garrison in Longford town (no more than 15 miles from the furthest part of the county).

cormacocomhrai

Gee Bag wrote: »

Though it was in gestation for quite some time, the actual War of Independence was over pretty quickly. There simply wasn't sufficent time or resources to recruit effective units in all areas.

That's a very important point. The War of Independence occurred in a series of waves or surges of violence where there would be violent incidents in a greater number of areas than had previously been the case. Early in 1920 there was a rapid increase in violence (not in deaths) because of the attacks on barracks. There was another surge in the summer and early autumn of 1920 with policemen being killed in ambushes in a quickly increasing number of counties. The violence eased off even if there were very large incidents. The late spring of 1921 saw another surge of violence with Connacht, particularly, becoming increasingly dangerous for crown forces. Some of that violence was as a result of the appointment of new local officers, some as a result of GHQ organisers (such as Tom Bourke that was sent to Offaly). A key difference between 1921 and the Civil War or the campaign that went into the early 1990s was that republican violence was increasing and spreading during 1921 rather than contracting.

And as has been pointed out even in areas with limited arms you had the destruction of the transport infatructure, the creation and manufacture of grenades, mines etc.

That said there were instances, particuarly, in earlier days, of local commanders putting their heel on efforts to attack crown forces. There was often rapid promotion for members of the IRA when GHQ organisers came to town and the pushing aside of local leaders. The same happened in certain cases when the Divisions began to be formed. Michael Brennan, for example, was extremely critical of the leadership in Galway but very complimentary towards the men and when the First Western Division was formed in April 1921 a company captain became Brigade commandant of the Southwest Galway Brigade, for example.

Farmer Pudsey

Gee Bag wrote: »

I'm not convinced by this theory about population density and topography. There are extensive areas of upland in Laois/Offaly (the Slieve Blooms and to the south of Portlaoise) as well as large tracts of bog which were relativley inaccessible at this time. The land in north county Longford is of marginal quality but is pretty level and serviced by an extensive road network (less bog than the rest of the county) allowing for rapid transport of troops and police. In addition there was a major garrison in Longford town (no more than 15 miles from the furthest part of the county).

It was not everything but it helped 15 miles might not seem much but it was a lot in them days. Tom Barrys ambush at Kilmichil was between Macroom and Dunmanway 20 miles apart. But he had many avenues of escape. So a major garrisson in Longford was a long distance away at 15 miles.

Yes the Dromkean was on the main Limerick-Tipperary however it was one of the few ambushes that took place in such a situtation and yes places like Wicklow was inactive but Kerry was not exactly a hive of activity either.Laois/Offaly/Westmeath were the land of the big farms which may not have helped the local orginisations as well. If you did not have access to them to train and billet it.

cormacocomhrai

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It was not everything but it helped 15 miles might not seem much but it was a lot in them days. Tom Barrys ambush at Kilmichil was between Macroom and Dunmanway 20 miles apart. But he had many avenues of escape. So a major garrisson in Longford was a long distance away at 15 miles.

Yes the Dromkean was on the main Limerick-Tipperary however it was one of the few ambushes that took place in such a situtation and yes places like Wicklow was inactive but Kerry was not exactly a hive of activity either.Laois/Offaly/Westmeath were the land of the big farms which may not have helped the local orginisations as well. If you did not have access to them to train and billet it.

East Limerick was an active area. Aside from Dromkeen there was a fair bit of activity around it even if attacks tended to be on a much smaller scale.

I think the Kerry thing is overstated to be honest. You hear it a lot that Kerry did nothing. While it wasn't on the same level as Cork, you still had major ambushes at the Headford Railway Station, at Rathmore and at Castlemaine. The Crown Forces had about twenty fatalities in those three incidents alone.

Comments about what areas did or didn't do by veterans also have to be viewed in terms of the Treaty split. That certainly coloured later opinions about the respective military performances of different areas. O'Duffy was famously critical of the IRA in Kerry later for example. Galway was hugely criticised particularly, retrospectively during the Civil War and Laois was another one. Lar Brady was involved in a fatal attack on Free State officers there and their lack of violence during the War of Independence was commented on.

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

The lack of activity during the war of independence in certain areas was primarily due to the quality of the local leadership and the inability of GHQ to provide effective training and weapons.

That is not a realistic reason. Most country lads of that era knew how to load, point and fire a weapon. For a ‘firefight’ war they would have needed training on fields of fire, tactics, cover, engage/withdraw, etc, but simple disruption of the enemy (the real need of guerrilla warfare, think what the Maquis did by simply unscrewing rail tracks in WW2 France) often required more brawn than brains.
Unless of course you could force the brawn - the Irish Times of 30th April 1921 reported that three young men were held up in Dalkey, (that hotbed of Republican dissent!) brought to Vico Road by motorcar and forced to dig a trench and fell a tree. Then on the 25th August, the same paper reported that
‘Telephone communications between Dalkey & Dublin were completely severed yesterday morning. Wires were extensively cut at the back of Ulverton Road...The greatest damage was done at the distributing pole on the Glenalua road, where fifty wires were cut through. Telephone wires were also down yesterday, having been cut apparently during the previous night. While three linesmen were repairing some of the damage during the afternoon they were ‘held up’ by two masked and armed men and relieved of their kit and tools.

Just goes to show that a bit of initiative, nerve, neck and no training goes a long way. Inaction around the country was most likely lack of support for the fight an a result of fear of reprisal.

Farmer Pudsey

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

East Limerick was an active area. Aside from Dromkeen there was a fair bit of activity around it even if attacks tended to be on a much smaller scale.

I think the Kerry thing is overstated to be honest. You hear it a lot that Kerry did nothing. While it wasn't on the same level as Cork, you still had major ambushes at the Headford Railway Station, at Rathmore and at Castlemaine. The Crown Forces had about twenty fatalities in those three incidents alone.

Comments about what areas did or didn't do by veterans also have to be viewed in terms of the Treaty split. That certainly coloured later opinions about the respective military performances of different areas. O'Duffy was famously critical of the IRA in Kerry later for example. Galway was hugely criticised particularly, retrospectively during the Civil War and Laois was another one. Lar Brady was involved in a fatal attack on Free State officers there and their lack of violence during the War of Independence was commented on.

I was not saying east limerick was inactive rather the opposite it was one of the few area's where ambushes took place on main roads it was not just Dromkean you also had the Oola ambush. East limerick was very active. General Lucy who was captured by the cork brigades was held in limerick for a good while before he escaped.
But this was not the rule elswhere most ambushes took place in small by roads or the attacks were on small barracks.

Gee Bag

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is not a realistic reason. Most country lads of that era knew how to load, point and fire a weapon. For a ‘firefight’ war they would have needed training on fields of fire, tactics, cover, engage/withdraw, etc,

It pretty much is the reason.

Shotguns were not common in private hands at this time, much less rifles. Given the extent of agrarian unrest in the late ninteenth century and the general fear of an armed rebellion it was difficult for someone seen as 'unloyal' to obtain a firearm. If privatley held weapons were freely available then the IRA would not have been attacking fortified RIC barracks in order to obtain arms.

The notion that inexperienced 'country lads' could take on British Army regulars (many of whom were combat veterans) without any training is very simplistic. GHQ (IRA Command) sent instructors around the country to train local units in basic military tactics. There weren't enough instructors to go around the entire country, therefore instructors were sent to the most militantly republican areas in order to maximise their effectiveness.

Local units were allowed to elect their own commanding officer. This proved to be a mistake as some units elected officers who were popular because they didn't push the men too hard or take risks.

The lack of arms was a major issue for the Republican side throughout the War of Independence. Often ambushes were undertaken with units having a minimal amounts of ammunition and with men armed with shotguns having to engage from very close range.

While disruptive action such as digging trenches, blocking roads, cutting telegraph lines and enforcing boycotts were important actions they were very much secondary to the actual fighting. In the end it was the sheer numbers being killed and injured that forced the British to agree to a truce.

He's been mentioned before but I'm going to mention him again, Ernie O'Malley is well worth reading about this period.

ciarriaithuaidh

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I was not saying east limerick was inactive rather the opposite it was one of the few area's where ambushes took place on main roads it was not just Dromkean you also had the Oola ambush. East limerick was very active. General Lucy who was captured by the cork brigades was held in limerick for a good while before he escaped.
But this was not the rule elswhere most ambushes took place in small by roads or the attacks were on small barracks.

Its merely a point of order, but its General LUCAS you mean I'm sure? He was captured while fishing in Fermoy i think and held in the east Limerick area before escaping. The Knocklong rescue and surrounding story in Dan Breen's book "My fight for Irish freedom" mentions the circumstances of Lucas' escape and that he was very complimentary afterwards towards his IRA captors for the treatment he received. Incidentally, the British thought that both the Knocklong train rescue of Seán Hogan and a subsequent attack on a convoy of Crossley tenders outside Oola, were both attempts to re-capture Lucas..which Dan Breen had a good laugh at in his book!

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

On the general topic of discussion...it seems from reading the contemporary accounts that poor leadership, local squabbling and lack of weaponry were the main factors for inactivity in certain areas, although lets be honest...there may also have been a lack of willingness to fully commit to bloodshed in some quarters. Its totally understandable. Many people forget just how few men actually FOUGHT the War of Indpendence and how ostracised and criticised by their fellow countrymen most of them were at the time. It was a bold and courageous step they took...too many of us have forgotten their sacrifices. One of the saddest things I remember reading is how many of those on the Republican side in the Civil war, left the country either out of fear or disgust and never returned. Some of these were men who had been through some of the toughest fighting which ultimately led to our freedom. I wouldn't agree with a lot of what they believed and fought for, but many of them deserved better.

cormacocomhrai

Re the question of arms there were a lot of shotguns in the countryside and the IRA hoovered up a lot of them but other than in closequarter fighting the shotgun was basically useless. They were desperately short of rifles and had next to no machine guns. Rifles were important militarily for covering retreats etc. but also, as was noted at the time, pyschologically. The rifles made them feel like soldiers and "improved the neighbours opinion of us". They captured some small number of rifles in ambushes, bought or stole some more and got some more during raids on the houses of the gentry. The problem with the latter was they were often of unusual makes and it was next to impossible to find ammunition for them.

sinsin

King and Queens County, Philipstown and Maryborough.
Laois and Offaly were planted,drive around and You will find that many towns and villages are planned and have War Memorials.
It was an inhospitable area for Republicans.

cormacocomhrai

It's an interesting theory but I'd have my suspicions of how much merit is in it. Towns and large villages tended to be areas of limited support for republicans regardless of where they were in country. It'd be interesting to see what Sinn Féin membership was like in the two counties, as a proportion of the population in the county. I have the figures somewhere. The original 16th century planters families were there a long time and would have been very assimilated whatever about families who had been "planted" during the late 1800s.

The republican movement would have been significantly smaller if it was only made up of people of Gaelic or Norman stock. One of the Laois IRA men who gave a witness statement who gave a witness statement to the Bureau of Military History was called Ramsbottom, for example. He was, presumably, of planter origin. One of the most famous republicans from Offaly over the years was a Protestant named Walter Mitchell.

Delancey

sinsin wrote: »

King and Queens County, Philipstown and Maryborough.
Laois and Offaly were planted,drive around and You will find that many towns and villages are planned and have War Memorials.
It was an inhospitable area for Republicans.

This is why there was relatively little action seen in Laois/Offaly - both counties also had significant protestant populations which may have also had a bearing on the ' participation rate ' in the IRA.

sinsin

Delancey wrote: »

This is why there was relatively little action seen in Laois/Offaly - both counties also had significant protestant populations which may have also had a bearing on the ' participation rate ' in the IRA.

Yes,There was a substantial Protestant population which meant the IRA could not move about with impunity.

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

It pretty much is the reason.

Shotguns were not common in private hands at this time, much less rifles. Given the extent of agrarian unrest in the late ninteenth century and the general fear of an armed rebellion it was difficult for someone seen as 'unloyal' to obtain a firearm. If privatley held weapons were freely available then the IRA would not have been attacking fortified RIC barracks in order to obtain arms.

The notion that inexperienced 'country lads' could take on British Army regulars (many of whom were combat veterans) without any training is very simplistic. GHQ (IRA Command) sent instructors around the country to train local units in basic military tactics. There weren't enough instructors to go around the entire country, therefore instructors were sent to the most militantly republican areas in order to maximise their effectiveness.

Local units were allowed to elect their own commanding officer. This proved to be a mistake as some units elected officers who were popular because they didn't push the men too hard or take risks.

The lack of arms was a major issue for the Republican side throughout the War of Independence. Often ambushes were undertaken with units having a minimal amounts of ammunition and with men armed with shotguns having to engage from very close range.

While disruptive action such as digging trenches, blocking roads, cutting telegraph lines and enforcing boycotts were important actions they were very much secondary to the actual fighting. In the end it was the sheer numbers being killed and injured that forced the British to agree to a truce.

He's been mentioned before but I'm going to mention him again, Ernie O'Malley is well worth reading about this period.

Gee Bag wrote: »

It pretty much is the reason.

No, it is not the reason. I’m not sure what your point is in that post, as you agree with me on several issues.
There were many shotguns in private hands and ordinary farmers knew how to use them. A shotgun is a very effective weapon at ranges of 40 – 60 yards. In the right hands and with a bit of very basic technical knowledge (known to any poacher) that range could easily be doubled, more than sufficient for any ambush, which is close-quarters fighting. It has been used from the 17th C and is still in use as a guerrilla weapon today, and by combat troops. Most of the ‘big houses’ were raided for shotguns, as rifles were very uncommon and of diverse calibres, as pointed out by CormacC above. Additionally, most of those 'big house' rifles were single-shot ‘black powder’ guns, suited to hunting and of little use to ‘rebels’. That which is why the RIC barracks were raided for their rifles, as I said in my above post. Those used cordite ammunition and were both considerably easier to use and more effective in the right hands.
Also, agrarian unrest was very common throughout the 19th century, and most certainly not confined to

Gee Bag wrote: »

‘the late ninteenth century’

Look at the armed crime figures for (to take an example) Clare, Limerick and Tipperary for the late 1840’s Famine era. Those counties were the most lawless in Ireland, where robberies of arms – mainly from ordinary farmers - accounted for 75 per cent of the total for all the robberies of arms in Ireland; in Limerick they were 42 per cent of the total, in a county that had a population of only 4 per cent of the entire population of Ireland. Nationwide, robberies for stealing arms in 1846 were 207, the following year they had increased by almost 160% to 530. (Hansard – see http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1847/nov/29/crime-and-outrage-ireland) That is why the Grand Jury and the Coercion Acts were introduced in that era and a result quite comparable to the Restoration of Order Ireland Act of 1920.

The aim of any guerrilla war is to disrupt the ruling power – the easiest way to do this is to disrupt their communications. The French Resistance did this and caused huge disruption in WW2, (read ‘Maquis’ by George Millar or any good book on the SOE or any guerrilla war); the New IRA did this repeatedly to the Belfast-Dublin railway line and by mining border roads throughout the Northern 'Troubles'.

Gee Bag wrote: »

In the end it was the sheer numbers being killed and injured that forced the British to agree to a truce.

I don’t agree with that either.

Gee Bag

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No, it is not the reason. I’m not sure what your point is in that post, as you agree with me on several issues.

My point is that I don't agree with anything in your original post.

You stated that most country lads would know how to fire a weapon, I disagree with this statement due to the limited number of firearms in private ownership at this time in Ireland.

Shotguns were used during the War of Independence but were not favoured due to their limited range (shotgun men at ambushes were very exposed to enemy fire) and unreliability of cartridges. The reason I specifically referred to agrarian unrest in the late ninteenth century is because of the scale of the movement at the time which scared the authorities into thinking another 1798 type rebellion was on the cards. Hence, the lack of availability of firearms.

You then suggested that a mixture of brawn and pluck would have been sufficent to carry the fight to the enemy. That kind of activity has it's place but was nothing more than a minor hindrance without the threat of violence to back it up. Hence, my opinion that such activity would have been of marginal use in areas without active IRA units.

Using the Maquis as an example for a guerilla war is a bad choice as there were external factors at play and they eventually were liberated by the Allies.

the New IRA did this repeatedly to the Belfast-Dublin railway line and by mining border roads throughout the Northern 'Troubles'.

Positioning of bombs in Northern Ireland (other than those specifically intended to kill) was rarely focused on dirupting lines of communication (which I take to mean military lines of communication). It was about disruption of the overall economy.

I don’t agree with that either

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

cormacocomhrai

Gee Bag you're overstating how rare shotguns were in early twentieth century Ireland. Rifles are a different issue. Volunteer companies were often able to collect 15-20 shotguns locally, except in the poorest areas. That was aside from any guns they might have possessed themselves. The quality of marksmanship was widely different though, like any other skill. A Kerry republican commented when he learned of the name of an RIC man who was killed in an ambush in Rathmore, Kerry. "He's not the first woodcock I shot." On the other hand you've the comment about the IRA in Limerick: "Most of our fellas wouldn't shoot a haystack."

pedroeibar1

Gee Bag wrote: »

My point is that I don't agree with anything in your original post.

You stated that most country lads would know how to fire a weapon, I disagree with this statement due to the limited number of firearms in private ownership at this time in Ireland.

Shotguns were used during the War of Independence but were not favoured due to their limited range (shotgun men at ambushes were very exposed to enemy fire) and unreliability of cartridges. The reason I specifically referred to agrarian unrest in the late ninteenth century is because of the scale of the movement at the time which scared the authorities into thinking another 1798 type rebellion was on the cards. Hence, the lack of availability of firearms. .

You have yet to give a valid excuse for the lack of activity in Laois/Offaly.
There were a substantial number of arms in Ireland, although many were old and almost antique. Even the guns landed in Howth and used in 1916 were left-overs from the Franco-Prussian War of 1872. If one is hit by a bullet the age of the gun that fired it is immaterial, it is the energy of the projectile that counts. As I pointed out earlier, shotgun cartridges can be easily adapted for longer ranges. Contrary to your assertion, shotgun or rifles have no impression on being exposed to enemy fire, it is cover that counts. Most cartridges of that era were made of waxed paper and quite waterproof, but if the outer layers were wet they tended to get stuck and were a little more difficult to remove.

Gee Bag wrote: »

You then suggested that a mixture of brawn and pluck would have been sufficent to carry the fight to the enemy. That kind of activity has it's place but was nothing more than a minor hindrance without the threat of violence to back it up. Hence, my opinion that such activity would have been of marginal use in areas without active IRA units. .

It is a hindrance, but it is a very important one recognized since time immemorial. It keeps the regular troops looking over their shoulders, it is very bad for their moral, it shows the general population that the guerrilla controls the terrain (if only at night) and it is very good for propaganda purposes and fundraising. (Almost all guerrilla wars that do not have external support fail.)

Gee Bag wrote: »

Using the Maquis as an example for a guerilla war is a bad choice as there were external factors at play and they eventually were liberated by the Allies. .

The Maquis is a very appropriate study, they were initially largely unsupported by external resources - that is why when they had explosives they targeted the ‘points’ on railway lines, because they were much more difficult to obtain, took longer to fit and required a minimum of explosive to be destroyed. They caused huge disruption and tied up thousands of German troops just before D-Day.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Positioning of bombs in Northern Ireland (other than those specifically intended to kill) was rarely focused on dirupting lines of communication (which I take to mean military lines of communication). It was about disruption of the overall economy. .

From the IRA Volunteers handbook :
CHAPTER 11-GENERAL TECHNIQUES
The guerrilla must always remember that his main job is the destruction and break-down of enemy communications, administration and supplies, and not the capture of specific objectives. Therefore, the more the enemy is harried the better the result. The guerrilla can always harry the enemy by even small scale methods. Trees felled across roads can cause long delays. Railway signal boxes can be effectively sabotaged. Telegraph and telephone lines can quite easily be put out of order. Four men can fell 200-300 trees of one foot diameter in a day. These can be set up as barriers or barricades. A stone tied to the end of a long piece of cord can be thrown over a wire and the wire lowered to the roadway and then cut.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5026680/IRA-Volunteers-Handbook-Notes-on-Guerrilla-Warfare


And while we are on Laois, it was that county where Dr. Tiede Herrema was held for most of his captivity back in 1975, a substantial part of it in Mountmellick, before he was transferred to Monasterevin. FWIW, around 1977 when deer stalking in Laois I encountered a poacher armed with an Armalite.

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

the New IRA did this repeatedly to the Belfast-Dublin railway line and by mining border roads throughout the Northern 'Troubles'.

I don’t agree with that either.

Not draggin it off topic but replying to the above. It was the British army who were " mining border roads throughout the Northern 'Troubles' ", not the IRA as I can personally vouch for having spent many a Saturday afternoon filling in the craters left by them only for the roads to be destroyed again a day or two later by the Brits. Not only that but they also blew up many bridges, with the Gombeen state govt expresssing a meek ' concern ' over such activites.

http://www.irishborderlands.com/living/secure.html

pedroeibar1

thecommietommy wrote: »

It was the British army who were " mining border roads throughout the Northern 'Troubles' ",

http://www.irishborderlands.com/living/secure.html

They 'blew' or blocked the roads with caissons which is quite different to mining them, which is what the IRA did and what I said. The British Army were not responsible for the railway line bombs, as I also said. Blocking the roads by the Army was a help, militarily, but any benefit was more than outweighed by the very negative impact of alienating the populace, as amply illustrated by your link.

Strange last sentence in the link you quoted.;)

and the easy escape of their perpetrators across the border into Ireland.

I don't want to go off topic...........

thecommietommy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

They 'blew' or blocked the roads with caissons which is quite different to mining them, which is what the IRA did and what I said. The British Army were not responsible for the railway line bombs, as I also said. Blocking the roads by the Army was a help, militarily, but any benefit was more than outweighed by the very negative impact of alienating the populace, as amply illustrated by your link.

Strange last sentence in the link you quoted.;)
I don't want to go off topic...........

Mods - only replying to the points raised by the poster above.
Yes your right, they used caissons (concrete barriers) and blew up the roads up with expolsives, particuliarily in the 70's along with bridges ( the 70's were the good old days when the Brits didn't make much attempt to hide their arrogance and contempt for the natives). However by the late 80's and early 90's your heros were a bit less violent about it and used JCB's a few days later to undo the work myself and others such as small farmers etc trying to access their lands on the other side of the border.

As for

Strange last sentence in the link you quoted.

Quote:
and the easy escape of their perpetrators across the border into Ireland.

Well their wouldn't be any " perpatrators " if the Brits weren't here in the first place.

Simples.

thecommietommy

Gee Bag wrote: »

It pretty much is the reason.

Shotguns were not common in private hands at this time, much less rifles. Given the extent of agrarian unrest in the late ninteenth century and the general fear of an armed rebellion it was difficult for someone seen as 'unloyal' to obtain a firearm. If privatley held weapons were freely available then the IRA would not have been attacking fortified RIC barracks in order to obtain arms.

The notion that inexperienced 'country lads' could take on British Army regulars (many of whom were combat veterans) without any training is very simplistic. GHQ (IRA Command) sent instructors around the country to train local units in basic military tactics. There weren't enough instructors to go around the entire country, therefore instructors were sent to the most militantly republican areas in order to maximise their effectiveness.

Local units were allowed to elect their own commanding officer. This proved to be a mistake as some units elected officers who were popular because they didn't push the men too hard or take risks.

The lack of arms was a major issue for the Republican side throughout the War of Independence. Often ambushes were undertaken with units having a minimal amounts of ammunition and with men armed with shotguns having to engage from very close range.

While disruptive action such as digging trenches, blocking roads, cutting telegraph lines and enforcing boycotts were important actions they were very much secondary to the actual fighting. In the end it was the sheer numbers being killed and injured that forced the British to agree to a truce.

He's been mentioned before but I'm going to mention him again, Ernie O'Malley is well worth reading about this period.

Yes Ernie O'Malley is well worth reading. Though I can understand your point of view, but as for " The notion that inexperienced 'country lads' could take on British Army regulars (many of whom were combat veterans) without any training is very simplistic. " At Kilmicheal most of the men had never engaged in a gun battle before from what I remember in Guerilla Days in Ireland. And that was the Auxiliary regiment, the SAS of their day (though the media called them "cadets" )

And also though mainly Dubs from the city, the men of 1916 didn't do too bad for inexperienced city lads taken on British Army regulars, artillery, gun boats etc

snafuk35

Well look at the map of the 1910 general election and you'll see that William O'Brien's All-For-Ireland-League was concentrated in Cork. Pretty much the rest of the country is uniformly Irish Parliamentary Party. The O'Brien Party was much more radical than the rest of the country and Cork had a history of rebellion going back the the Desmond Rebellion. There was more radical population in Cork than elsewhere and the neighbour counties of Tipperary, Limerick, Kerry and Waterford were obviously influenced by their proximity to Cork.

mattman_iflaf

cormacocomhrai wrote: »

... It'd be interesting to see what Sinn Féin membership was like in the two counties, as a proportion of the population in the county. I have the figures somewhere.....

I'd certainly be interested in those figures, are they publically available ? More to the point is there anywhere one can find out what actual activities took place in Count Laois ? My interest is from a family perspective. My Grand Uncle's memory card notes : "B" Company, 2nd Batt., I.R.A., Leix Division. He died 25-Feb-1922 supposedly hit by a falling tree. I wonder was this as a result of his activities ? I know little else other than a rumour he dug trenches for the IRA. Anyone know of a means of tracing more on this ?

Dr.Nightdub

Mattman, when he died the Truce was still in effect and the Civil War hadn't yet begun, so he may have been given an IRA funeral - check the archives of the local paper (the National Library also has most of them on microfilm).

After that, your best bet is the Bureau of Military History: the Military Archives website has an index of the various witness statements given by IRA veterans, he may be mentioned in some of those. I think they're due to be put online by the end of this month.

snafuk35

mattman_iflaf wrote: »

I'd certainly be interested in those figures, are they publically available ? More to the point is there anywhere one can find out what actual activities took place in Count Laois ? My interest is from a family perspective. My Grand Uncle's memory card notes : "B" Company, 2nd Batt., I.R.A., Leix Division. He died 25-Feb-1922 supposedly hit by a falling tree. I wonder was this as a result of his activities ? I know little else other than a rumour he dug trenches for the IRA. Anyone know of a means of tracing more on this ?

Check out the Laois County Library Local Studies Collection
Local Studies Department
Laois County Library HQ
Kea-Lew Business Park
Portlaoise
Co. Laois

I am sure the library has micro films and hard copies of local newspapers from the period so there are sure to be mentions of incidents including an unsual death by a falling tree.

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/reading-room/culturenet/archives/laois/laois-county-library-loca/

You could also check out the Military Service Pension files:

The Military Service Pensions Collection is a unique collection of records, files, maps, drawings and diagrams. The files relate in the main to applications by individuals and/or their dependants for the award of pension and gratuities for veterans who served as members of the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army, the Irish Republican Army, Cumann na mBan, the National Army/Defence Forces and kindred named organisations on active service or who were casualties or wounded while on duty during the period from April and May 1916 through to 30 September 1923.

If a Laois veteran spoke about the death of an IRA member during a tree felling it is likely to be mentioned somewhere among those files.

Contact:

Officer in Charge,
Military Archives,
Cathal Brugha Barracks,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6