Year of the French 1798

pavb2

Just coming to the end of Thomas Flanagan's book which gives an enthralling account of events including the social landscape of the time but my assessment rightly or wrongly is that as he puts it Ireland was a pawn in the wider European conflict between France & Britain 'A scuffle in a pasture' I think he describes it. I would make the following points

General Humbert seems to have been after personal glory,put up token resistance, honourable surrender and nothing worse than being sent back to France leaving the rebels to their fate I wonder how is he generally regarded in Irish history?

It seems the 1798 uprising could never have been successful due to the unco ordinated efforts of Wexford,The Northern counties,midlands & the west.
Also the British were better equipped,better trained & could put more resources in the field even if the French had made further successful attempts to land.

Images of farmers leaving fields with scyths to join the uprising is heroic but seems woefully inadequate against the British.

The motivation of the Yeoman/ militia is also interesting as I know this wasn't a sectarian uprising and indeed the Cork militia as I understand it had many catholics in their number.

A fascinating insight into this period of history as I think Flanagan seems to give all points of view though how accurate is this i.e. Cornwallis the a reluctant soldier doing what he had to do while General Lake etc taking responsibility for most of the slaughter

sanbrafyffe

ya its very interesting,,,,,,,,i come from where he landed in mayo and we had a massive festival in 1998 to celebrate it,,,,,we have monuments of humberts head here and his trail,,,2 films have being shot here too,,,,,,year of the french and troubles

pavb2 wrote: »

Just coming to the end of Thomas Flanagan's book which gives an enthralling account of events including the social landscape of the time but my assessment rightly or wrongly is that as he puts it Ireland was a pawn in the wider European conflict between France & Britain 'A scuffle in a pasture' I think he describes it. I would make the following points

General Humbert seems to have been after personal glory,put up token resistance, honourable surrender and nothing worse than being sent back to France leaving the rebels to their fate I wonder how is he generally regarded in Irish history?

It seems the 1798 uprising could never have been successful due to the unco ordinated efforts of Wexford,The Northern counties,midlands & the west.
Also the British were better equipped,better trained & could put more resources in the field even if the French had made further successful attempts to land.

Images of farmers leaving fields with scyths to join the uprising is heroic but seems woefully inadequate against the British.

The motivation of the Yeoman/ militia is also interesting as I know this wasn't a sectarian uprising and indeed the Cork militia as I understand it had many catholics in their number.

A fascinating insight into this period of history as I think Flanagan seems to give all points of view though how accurate is this i.e. Cornwallis the a reluctant soldier doing what he had to do while General Lake etc taking responsibility for most of the slaughter

tyler71

You're right, it's definitely a fascinating time in Irish history and seems only really to be remembered separately by Mayo people (such as myself) and Wexford people - you'd hardly know that they both happened in the same year.
I must read the Flanagan book, my impression would be that we would definitely have been pawns in the whole European game but probably willing to take any help we could get and a bit of coordination could have made a huge difference - from what I remember of the 'Year of the French', Humbert completely took the British by surprise and they were quite short on reinforcement and he was looking to march on Dublin and if he had been a bit faster it might have happened but he got stopped - interesting to think what would have happened if this would all have happened at the same time as the Wexford revolution and forces may not have been sufficient.
In the end we all know how it turned out and although the French forces got sent home, a lot of the Irish militia got executed, so between that and the better know Wexford slaughter, that was pretty much that for a generation.
But hey, we had our Free Republic Of Connaught, even if only for a little while.

pavb2

I think it would be a great experience to retrace Humbert's steps does Humberts Way retrace the whole journey? likewise the remnants of Wexford up to the midlands and Wicklow.

The Free Republic of Connaught does have a nice ring to it

Judgement Day

1798 is a fascinating period to study and here in Enniscorthy/Wexford, the scene of many bloody events, it is easy to examine battle sites that have changed little with the passing years. Vinegar Hill is particularly worth a visit as is the town of Enniscorthy. I would dispute your claim that the 1798 rebellion was non-sectarian and in County Wexford in particular there was a pogrom against local protestants. This was strange as many of the local leaders were from the protestant landed classes but a fact nonetheless.

Could the French/Irish rebels have won - I think not, but perhaps if larger numbers of French troops had arrived earlier things could have turned out differently. However, I suspect that whatever the initial successes would have been the British government would not have tolerated encirclement by the French and whatever was needed would have been done to retake Ireland with the consequent slaughter that would have ensued making the actual 1798 casualties pale into insignificance.

If you haven't visited the South East to look at 1798 sites I would strongly recommend a visit - Tuberneering (nr.Gorey) where on June 4th 1798 a British column was wiped out - the last major rebel victory of the campaign; Ballymore (site of a rebel encampment) http://www.ballymorehistoricfeatures.com/ ; Vinegar Hill; Enniscorthy town and (National 1798 Centre) http://www.1798centre.ie/ with a sanatised version of events; New Ross - where the same maze of narrow little streets that bore witness to one of the most bloody battles and awful slaughters in the rebellion still exists. That's just a few off the top of my head but there's plenty more including a couple of private sites too sensitive to mention and where the land owners still don't welcome visitors 200+ years on.

MarchDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

I would dispute your claim that the 1798 rebellion was non-sectarian and in County Wexford in particular there was a pogrom against local protestants. This was strange as many of the local leaders were from the protestant landed classes but a fact nonetheless.

Yes, there were some overtones of religion going on in the background to the rebellion - and the rebellion has to understood within the context of the political climate. Although FitzGerald and many of the leaders were themselves non sectarian, religion was still a political issue.

Although Parliament had granted Catholics who met the property qualification the right to vote in 1793, the right for Catholics to sit in Parliament was turned down in May 1795. The bill had been introduced by [the Protestant] Henry Grattan - who supported Catholic Emancipation - but another Protestant interest group led by Henry Flood defeated the bill. Flood in one of his speeches to the Irish Commons stated that the Penal Laws against Catholics were a "political necessity" and "we will give all toleration to religion but we will not give them [Catholics] political power".

The irony was that Flood was actually one of the liberals in the Irish Parliament prior to Grattan's time. He wanted more power for the Irish Parliament but demurred on the issue of Catholic participation.

So Protestants were actually split on the issue of Catholic Emancipation and full political participation - and this in turn impacted the aroused feelings during the '98 Rebellion.

But I don't want to paint a bad picture here - only explain the mix of sectarian issues - and I do want to stress that support for Catholics was very strong amongst many of the Protestant leaders both in the Irish Parliament at the time and those who participated in the '98 Rising.

MarchDub

I have a copy of the oath taken by recruits to the United Irishmen and have typed it out here:

In the lawful presence of God, I, [insert name], do voluntarily declare, that I will persevere in endeavouring to form a brotherhood of affection among Irishmen of every religious persuasion and that I will also persevere in my endeavours to obtain an equal, full, and adequate representation of all the people of Ireland. I do further declare, that neither hopes, fears, rewards, or punishments, shall ever induce me, directly or indirectly, to inform on, or give evidence against, any member or members of this or similar societies for any act or expression of theirs, done or made collectively or individually in or out of this society, in pursuance of the spirit of this obligation.

The date on this is 1797 - there was a similar one taken in 1791 with slightly different wording but the same in all essentials.

slowburner

pavb2 wrote: »

I think it would be a great experience to retrace Humbert's steps does Humberts Way retrace the whole journey? likewise the remnants of Wexford up to the midlands and Wicklow.

The Free Republic of Connaught does have a nice ring to it

I am currently trying to find some of the routes you mention here in Wicklow. The battle of Arklow followed Vinegar Hill and after this the rebels split in to two groups, one marched and fought its way to Kilkenny the other (with Joseph Holt and Michael Dwyer) fought a guerilla war from its base in the Wicklow mountains.
Specifically, I am looking for the site of a battle (it may have been a skirmish) which is reputed to have occurred somewhere between Arklow and Glenmalure in the Wicklow mountains.
The heat of the activity in Wicklow during 1798 was second only to Wexford and yet, as tyler71 says, it seems not to be remembered in this county so much.

The passage below (from The War in Wexford. HFB Wheeler and AM Broadley. 1910 (?)) gives a good picture of what daily life was like at the time -

"June the 3d. They made three Protestants shoot
a man of the name of Murphy in The Bull Ring.
They wou'd not kill him themselves because he was
a Catholic, but he cou'd not be pardoned as he had
given information against Dixon, a Priest,
who was transported in consequence. The Rebels told the
Men who shot Murphy that they shou'd also suffer.
However, they sent them back to Jail. One of them
was butchered on the Bridge the 2oth of June. Murphy
had been Servant to Mr Edwards, who had retreated
with the Army to Duncannon. Not having him in their
power they showed their good intentions towards him
by tearing his Mother's house to atoms and destroying
all her property. She and her daughters had
luckily escaped to Wales. Two Ships only were loyal
and went off, She by chance was on board one of them.
" From the 3d to the ioth I recollect nothing
particular, every day was equally miserable and passed
in the same Manner, our doors open, Rebels ever
coming in and walking all over the House, some Civil,
some not, no one ever knowing whether they wou'd
murder or not before they departed. The Rebel
Troops paraded Twice a day on the Quay opposite
our door. They had fiddles, Drums, and Fifes. They
were pleased to call it parade. It was in reality a
regular Tumult, every one gave his advice and opinion.
One said, 'I will go and take Ross/ another,'I willtake Newtownbarry.' Henry John listened one day with great attention and said,
' Dear Mama, are they every one Kings ?'

HellsAngel

tyler71 wrote: »

You're right, it's definitely a fascinating time in Irish history and seems only really to be remembered separately by Mayo people (such as myself) and Wexford people - you'd hardly know that they both happened in the same year.
I must read the Flanagan book, my impression would be that we would definitely have been pawns in the whole European game but probably willing to take any help we could get and a bit of coordination could have made a huge difference - from what I remember of the 'Year of the French', Humbert completely took the British by surprise and they were quite short on reinforcement and he was looking to march on Dublin and if he had been a bit faster it might have happened but he got stopped - interesting to think what would have happened if this would all have happened at the same time as the Wexford revolution and forces may not have been sufficient.
In the end we all know how it turned out and although the French forces got sent home, a lot of the Irish militia got executed, so between that and the better know Wexford slaughter, that was pretty much that for a generation.
But hey, we had our Free Republic Of Connaught, even if only for a little while.

Not trying to put you down, but you (and others on the thread) have forgotten that their also were major risings in Antrim under Henry Joy McCracken and in Down under Henry Munro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ballynahinch

slowburner

HellsAngel wrote: »

Not trying to put you down, but you (and others on the thread) have forgotten that their also were major risings in Antrim under Henry Joy McCracken and in Down under Henry Munro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ballynahinch

And Carlow
Battle of Carlow
And Kildare
Battle of Naas
Battle of Kilcullen
Battle of Prosperous
Battle of Rathangan
The list goes on here
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

Judgement Day

slowburner wrote: »

I am currently trying to find some of the routes you mention here in Wicklow. The battle of Arklow followed Vinegar Hill and after this the rebels split in to two groups, one marched and fought its way to Kilkenny the other (with Joseph Holt and Michael Dwyer) fought a guerilla war from its base in the Wicklow mountains.
Specifically, I am looking for the site of a battle (it may have been a skirmish) which is reputed to have occurred somewhere between Arklow and Glenmalure in the Wicklow mountains.
The heat of the activity in Wicklow during 1798 was second only to Wexford and yet, as tyler71 says, it seems not to be remembered in this county so much.

The passage below (from The War in Wexford. HFB Wheeler and AM Broadley. 1910 (?)) gives a good picture of what daily life was like at the time -

The Battle of Arklow was on the 9th June and Vinegar Hill was on the 21st June and the surviving rebels retreated to Wexford. It was after the abandonment of Wexford on the 22nd June that the rebel forces divided into two columns and headed north. As far as I know there were a series of skirmishes in the Wicklow mountains with Holt's men but nothing that could be called a battle.

FinnLizzy

There was an interesting battle in Collooney, Sligo. It was a French/Rebel victory led by Bart Teeling. There is a large monument on the old Dublin road around there of Teeling with his hand in the air.
His fingers were shot off by black and tans during the War of Independence for target practice (take it with a pinch of salt though).

It is said that Teeling dismantled two cannons on different hills, but it might just be bullsh*t.

slowburner

Judgement Day wrote: »

The Battle of Arklow was on the 9th June and Vinegar Hill was on the 21st June and the surviving rebels retreated to Wexford. It was after the abandonment of Wexford on the 22nd June that the rebel forces divided into two columns and headed north. As far as I know there were a series of skirmishes in the Wicklow mountains with Holt's men but nothing that could be called a battle.

oops - thanks for the correction.

slowburner

It seems that Holt was in the Glen before Vinegar hill.

Judgement Day

Two books which are invaluable for 1798 historians - full of facts, maps and drawings - are Musgrave's contemporary (1800) "Memoirs of the Irish Rebellion of 1798" reprinted in 1995 see below:



and Art Kavanagh's more recent "Battles of 1798" both still available through Abebooks.com

slowburner

Thanks for that JD.
I'm too poor (or mean) to go out buying books like this, much as I would like to. For those in a similar position, you can read the original online here

sanbrafyffe

they landed in killcummin county mayo and had their first battle in killala co mayo

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

I have a copy of the oath taken by recruits to the United Irishmen and have typed it out here:

The date on this is 1797 - there was a similar one taken in 1791 with slightly different wording but the same in all essentials.

Here's the opposition's oath which was intended to 'flush out' United Irishmen.

slowburner

It is probably not my place to say it, but I will say it anyway.

This period in our history is gripping for many reasons, not least the absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides. Sadly, that savagery still reverberates on this island of ours, so it is probably inescapable that sensitive sectarian issues will arise at some point during this discussion.
I sincerely hope that we can keep this thread going as an intelligent and educational exploration of the events in and around 1798 and that we can do everything in our power to exclude those who would drag this thread down to the depths of sectarian mud slinging.

MarchDub

Just a few years ago an extensive collection of FitzGerald's papers was acquired by the National Library.

It has long been known that a valuable collection of untraced Fitzgerald material existed. Thomas Moore had access to it for his 1831 biography of Lord Edward and it was also drawn on by Gerald Campbell for his biography of Edward and Pamela in 1904. It had been assumed that these papers had been destroyed, perhaps because of their political sensitivity. This mystery has now been resolved with the recent acquisition by the National Library of an extensive collection of Fitzgerald papers, which includes the Moore material as well as many documents never before cited. The correspondence runs to c. 800 items from the 1770s to the 1830s, but peaking in the late 1790s; there are 150 items from 1798 alone, a period under-represented in other collections.

Nhead

tyler71 wrote: »

You're right, it's definitely a fascinating time in Irish history and seems only really to be remembered separately by Mayo people (such as myself) and Wexford people - you'd hardly know that they both happened in the same year.
I must read the Flanagan book, my impression would be that we would definitely have been pawns in the whole European game but probably willing to take any help we could get and a bit of coordination could have made a huge difference - from what I remember of the 'Year of the French', Humbert completely took the British by surprise and they were quite short on reinforcement and he was looking to march on Dublin and if he had been a bit faster it might have happened but he got stopped - interesting to think what would have happened if this would all have happened at the same time as the Wexford revolution and forces may not have been sufficient.
In the end we all know how it turned out and although the French forces got sent home, a lot of the Irish militia got executed, so between that and the better know Wexford slaughter, that was pretty much that for a generation.
But hey, we had our Free Republic Of Connaught, even if only for a little while.

As a Kildare man I'd strongly disagree with it only being remembered in Mayo and Wexford, obviously with Prosperous , Wolfe Tone being buried in Bodenstown (where there is a commeration each year) and the Gibbet Rath massacre on the Curragh plains to name but a few, people remember it in Kildare. Some notable writers on the period are the excellent C.J Woods, Marianne Elliot and Liam Chambers. Senia Paseta has an article on the commemeration of 1798 in 1898 and a lot of towns throughout Ireland have some type of plaque or statue to 1798 such as Rathvilly, Tullow, Carlow town, Kildare Town, Prosperous, the Curragh, Dungarven, Clonakilty not to mention the Croppy Acre, Dublin (disgracefully littered and graffitied) to name but a few. Tones own diaries are a must.

pavb2

Some good points made and for my part I knew the details of the Wexford rising, had vague knowledge of the midlands, northern counties and Mayo from Packenham's Year of Liberty but until reading Year of the French didn't comprehend the magnitude of the events in the west.

I think the book gives such a detailed account at so many different levels and points of view and will look for other accounts on the midlands and north.

On reflection and part of the reason for the original post much of what I've read about 1798 relates to the Wexford uprising. Other areas (Mayo,the midlands & Northern counties) are mentioned almost as footnotes when in fact they were as important

Nhead

Google books have a full view of a book by, the Lisburn journalistand brother of the leader Bartholomew Teeling, Charles Teeling.

http://www.google.ie/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=1798+rebellion&oq=1798#q=1798+rebellion&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=bkv:f&sa=X&ei=Y-NATquPN4i1hAeW4rXVCQ&ved=0CAsQpwUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5c17cc4fb0a361a&biw=1366&bih=587

HellsAngel

slowburner wrote: »

It is probably not my place to say it, but I will say it anyway.

This period in our history is gripping for many reasons, not least the absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides. Sadly, that savagery still reverberates on this island of ours, so it is probably inescapable that sensitive sectarian issues will arise at some point during this discussion.
I sincerely hope that we can keep this thread going as an intelligent and educational exploration of the events in and around 1798 and that we can do everything in our power to exclude those who would drag this thread down to the depths of sectarian mud slinging.

Could you elaborate of what you call "absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides." ? You seem to imply that the United Irishmen carried out an equal number of murders, burnings, pitch capping and rape as the British forces and their collaborators ? As far as I know of 1798, the UI men's actions were exclusively against the British forces and their collaborators.

From what I remember there is controversy about the burning of Scullabogue barn in Wexford which has been used by unionists and British apologists to portray the whole Rebellion as secterian, when in fact there were some Catholics in the barn while some of the UI men who set fire to the barn were Protestants.

slowburner

HellsAngel wrote: »

Could you elaborate of what you call "absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides." ? You seem to imply that the United Irishmen carried out an equal number of murders, burnings, pitch capping and rape as the British forces and their collaborators ? From what i know of 1798, the UI men's actions were almost exclusively against the British forces and their collaborators.

From what I remember there is controversy about the burning of Scullabogue barn in Wexford which has been used by unionists and British apologists to portray the whole Rebellion as secterian, when in fact there were some Catholics in the barn while some of the UI men who set fire to the barn were Protestants.

I could elaborate, but I won't, because that could lead to sectarian mud slinging. I don't think it matters who carried out the most atrocious acts - or the greatest number, one life taken violently is an atrocity.

HellsAngel

slowburner wrote: »

I could elaborate, but I won't, because that could lead to sectarian mud slinging. I don't think it matters who carried out the most atrocious acts - or the greatest number, one life taken violently is an atrocity.

This is what my Leitrim grandfather would have called a " hat tipper " :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Could you elaborate of what you call "absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides." ? You seem to imply that the United Irishmen carried out an equal number of murders, burnings, pitch capping and rape as the British forces and their collaborators ? As far as I know of 1798, the UI men's actions were exclusively against the British forces and their collaborators.

From what I remember there is controversy about the burning of Scullabogue barn in Wexford which has been used by unionists and British apologists to portray the whole Rebellion as secterian, when in fact there were some Catholics in the barn while some of the UI men who set fire to the barn were Protestants.

Sectarian or not, it still sounds like savagery to me.

Judgement Day

HellsAngel wrote: »

Could you elaborate of what you call "absolute savagery which was carried out by both sides." ? You seem to imply that the United Irishmen carried out an equal number of murders, burnings, pitch capping and rape as the British forces and their collaborators ? As far as I know of 1798, the UI men's actions were exclusively against the British forces and their collaborators.

From what I remember there is controversy about the burning of Scullabogue barn in Wexford which has been used by unionists and British apologists to portray the whole Rebellion as secterian, when in fact there were some Catholics in the barn while some of the UI men who set fire to the barn were Protestants.

Scullabogue was but one of a number of atrocities, along with Vinegar Hill and Wexford Bridge but it's history now and no point in turning an interesting thread into a mud slinging event. Read Musgrave's book - biased but quite factual - if you want a sectarian headcount for the three incidents that I've mentioned.

slowburner

One of the points to bear in mind is that 1798 was not that long ago. As JD said above

....... but there's plenty more including a couple of private sites too sensitive to mention and where the land owners still don't welcome visitors 200+ years on.

So it is important to bear in mind that any discussion on the 1798 rebellion has the potential to cause offence - to descendants from either side.
That said, the capacity for up close and personal violence at the time was astounding and there are tales to be told about such acts.
Here's an account of Holt's summary justice.

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

I could elaborate, but I won't, because that could lead to sectarian mud slinging. I don't think it matters who carried out the most atrocious acts - or the greatest number, one life taken violently is an atrocity.

slowburner wrote: »

So it is important to bear in mind that any discussion on the 1798 rebellion has the potential to cause offence - to descendants from either side.
That said, the capacity for up close and personal violence at the time was astounding and there are tales to be told about such acts.
Here's an account of Holt's summary justice.

Slowburner - I'm not sure what point you are making here - on the one hand you keep saying that the discussion must not descend into mud slinging about violence and then you post information on that very violence that you say we must not discuss. I am confused anyway. Maybe you can explain.

I abhor violence - I refuse to even watch it in films or on TV for 'entertainment' purposes. I have walked out of cinemas because of the gratuitous violence on the screen.

Having said that let me make a point about war - all wars are horrible and full of brutality that both sides commit. More recent than 1798 is WWII where the eye witness accounts coming out of Poland in recent years from survivors about atrocities on both sides - The Allies and the Germans - committed against ordinary Polish citizens would make your head reel. If we judge any war by its violence - and maybe we should - than the aspirational aspect of all wars comes into question. But this is not usually the case at all - wars are judged by their stated aspirational aims: and whether they are just or unjust.

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

Slowburner - I'm not sure what point you are making here - on the one hand you keep saying that the discussion must not descend into mud slinging about violence and then you post information on that very violence that you say we must not discuss. I am confused anyway. Maybe you can explain.

I abhor violence - I refuse to even watch it in films or on TV for 'entertainment' purposes. I have walked out of cinemas because of the gratuitous violence on the screen.

Having said that let me make a point about war - all wars are horrible and full of brutality that both sides commit. More recent than 1798 is WWII where the eye witness accounts coming out of Poland in recent years from survivors about atrocities on both sides - The Allies and the Germans - committed against ordinary Polish citizens would make your head reel. If we judge any war by its violence - and maybe we should - than the aspirational aspect of all wars comes into question. But this is not usually the case at all - wars are judged by their stated aspirational aims: and whether they are just or unjust.

I apologise for the apparent hypocrisy. Hopefully I can explain.

First, a slight correction - I said I said I hoped the discussion would not descend into sectarian mud slinging, not mud slinging about violence.

I abhor violence too, I just find this period astonishing in the sense that one person could inflict such horrific injuries on another human being - with their own hands. Musket balls were a rationed commodity, most violent acts were carried out with edged or blunt weapons.
I find the casual acceptance of what you and I would describe as acts of savagery, utterly alien.
But you are absolutely right - 70 years ago there was equal and worse barbarity.
And I take on board all you say about war - I fully agree.
The point I was making with the recent post is that I hope we can describe incidents from the period without becoming partisan. I chose the quote from Holt's memoirs because it is a act of savagery on one of his own men - thus hoping to avoid the introduction of a 'who did the worst to whom' scenario. I would hope that it would be possible to describe the events at Scullbullogue, for example, without the discussion descending into sectarianism.
I suppose I am trying to show that by our horror at the ease of the violence back then, that we have moved on as a civilisation. Probably not.

HellsAngel

pavb2 wrote: »

Just coming to the end of Thomas Flanagan's book which gives an enthralling account of events including the social landscape of the time but my assessment rightly or wrongly is that as he puts it Ireland was a pawn in the wider European conflict between France & Britain 'A scuffle in a pasture' I think he describes it. I would make the following points

Well in fairness I don't think you could knock the French revolutionaries for their support as being minor considering the resources available to them at the time. Revoulotionary France always had to be at the ready for an attack at any time from the anti French coalation of superpowers of the day which they had beaten off such as Austria, Prussia, Spain etc Their was only so much that they could commit to assit Ireland or anywhere else without leaving themselves open to invasion.

Still in 1796, the expedition, consisting of forty-three sail and carrying about 14,000 men with a large supply of armaments for distribution in Ireland, sailed from Brest. They waited for days off Bantry Bay, waiting for the storm to ease, but eventually had to return to France. Had they landed in Cork and with thousands of arms to supply the Irish, their numbers could well indeed have snowballed as they went up through the country with more volunteers and captured weapons. Just remember, a combined force of 2,000 French and Irish routed a force of 6,000 British at the Battle of Castlebar.

General Humbert seems to have been after personal glory,put up token resistance, honourable surrender and nothing worse than being sent back to France leaving the rebels to their fate I wonder how is he generally regarded in Irish history?

Humbert faced overwhelming numbers at the Battle of Ballinamuck on the Leitrim/Longford border. General Lake had 14,000 men; Lord Cornwallis, approaching with 15,000. Having to surrender against such odds, their wasn't a lot Humbert could do to dictate the terms. Humbert later became critical of Napoleon’s imperial ambitions and left for America where he took part with Gen Jackson in the Battle Of New Orleans routing the British again.

It seems the 1798 uprising could never have been successful due to the unco ordinated efforts of Wexford,The Northern counties,midlands & the west.

Not surprising given the conditions at the time, Wellington almost lost the Battle of Waterloo for example not knowing whether the Prussians were going to turn up.

Also the British were better equipped,better trained & could put more resources in the field even if the French had made further successful attempts to land.

The French were better equipped, better trained and lead than the British, look at Castlebar for example. They lost when facing much greater numbers whether at Ballinamuck or Waterloo. It should also be noted that Tone had contact with pro revoulotionaires in England and Scotland (Scotland had a movement similar to the United Irishmen) and had hoped that a successful rising in Ireland might also spark the same over there.

Images of farmers leaving fields with scyths to join the uprising is heroic but seems woefully inadequate against the British.

Like any revolutionary group starting off, you have to arm yourselves as best you can with what you've got.

The motivation of the Yeoman/ militia is also interesting as I know this wasn't a sectarian uprising and indeed the Cork militia as I understand it had many Catholics in their number.

If anyone has any information on Catholics in the North Cork militia I'd appreciate it. The North Cork militia were later annihalted at the Battle of Oulart Hill.

A fascinating insight into this period of history as I think Flanagan seems to give all points of view though how accurate is this i.e. Cornwallis the a reluctant soldier doing what he had to do while General Lake etc taking responsibility for most of the slaughter

Yes I believe Cornwallis had become sickened by war having previously fought in the 7 years war and in America.

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

I suppose I am trying to show that by our horror at the ease of the violence back then, that we have moved on as a civilisation. Probably not.

Well I'm not holding my breath as regards the moving on aspects - history shows that the guys with the biggest army - or navy- are the ones who rule the world. And all 'diplomacy' flows from that. Nothing has changed.

MarchDub

pavb2 wrote: »

J


A fascinating insight into this period of history as I think Flanagan seems to give all points of view though how accurate is this i.e. Cornwallis the a reluctant soldier doing what he had to do while General Lake etc taking responsibility for most of the slaughter

I haven't read the book - it's not my usual type of reading - so I can't address exactly what was written about Cornwallis, but the record would not suggest that he was a reluctant soldier. After his surrender at Yorktown in the American war Cornwallis served in India where as well as overhauling the Indian Civil Service he led campaigns against native uprisings there. He was made a Marquess for his service in India.

But he didn't really believe in the absolute, stand by your guns rule of some. Cornwallis understood that to hold a lot you have to give a little. He supported Catholic Emancipation during his time in Ireland and although he supported the Act of Union in 1800, he resigned when King George III refused to give Catholics full political rights. Catholic Emancipation had been promised as part of the negotiations - flagrant bribes that Cornwallis himself oversaw - for the passage of the Act of Union through the Irish Parliament.

Fratton Fred

Were the French coming to Ireland as a conquering nation, or a liberating one?

Would they have introduced conscription like they did in Belgium and Luxembourg and how would their anti clericalism have sat amongst the Catholic Irish?

I guess we will never know.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Were the French coming to Ireland as a conquering nation, or a liberating one?

Would they have introduced conscription like they did in Belgium and Luxembourg and how would their anti clericalism have sat amongst the Catholic Irish?

I guess we will never know.

I would have thought that since they had been requested by the leader of the UI men Wolfe Tone to come and the reception and enthusiasm of the locals in Mayo, Sligo etc to join them, they would have been seen as a liberating one by most Irish people.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

I would have thought that since they had been requested by the leader of the UI men Wolfe Tone to come and the reception and enthusiasm of the locals in Mayo, Sligo etc to join them, they would have been seen as a liberating one by most Irish people.

How did the French view it though? Would they have left once the job was done, or simply replaced British rule with French rule?

slowburner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How did the French view it though? Would they have left once the job was done, or simply replaced British rule with French rule?

That's the point.
Were the French coming for purely altruistic, republican reasons or had they something else in mind?

slowburner

HellsAngel wrote: »

If anyone has any information on Catholics in the North Cork militia I'd appreciate it. The North Cork militia were later annihalted at the Battle of Oulart Hill.

I'll have a trawl through the info I have on this, if it's of any use to you :pac:

MarchDub

The French were responding to the request for Irish help and their more important mission in Egypt meant that the Irish were down the ladder a bit - their bigger picture was defeating the English either militarily or economically.

And in any case the French Directory of 1798 were essentially outed the next year - in November 1799 - by the takeover of Napoleon when he led a group of grenadiers and drove the council from its chambers and installed himself as leader of France.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The French were responding to the request for Irish help and their more important mission in Egypt meant that the Irish were down the ladder a bit - their bigger picture was defeating the English either militarily or economically.

And in any case the French Directory of 1798 were essentially outed the next year - in November 1799 - by the takeover of Napoleon when he led a group of grenadiers and drove the council from its chambers and installed himself as leader of France.

Bonaparte had similar plans as well though. His planned invasion of England, which came to an abrupt end when their fleet was destroyed at Trafalgar, included landing a large army in Ireland.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bonaparte had similar plans as well though. His planned invasion of England, which came to an abrupt end when their fleet was destroyed at Trafalgar, included landing a large army in Ireland.

Never heard about Boney sending another expedition to Ireland. Link/proof ?

As for Trafalgar, the French navy was well down the list of French priorites compared to their army as they were surrounded on all sides by the imperial states of Europe trying to kill the French revoulotion ASAP. In football terms, the French navy could have been described as the third reserves - with many of them Spanish conscripts at that.

HellsAngel

slowburner wrote: »

I'll have a trawl through the info I have on this, if it's of any use to you :pac:

While you look it up, what towns/villages in North Cork were they from ?

MarchDub

This thread looks like it is being derailed by a strawman argument about French intentions - with no proof at all being offered on the point.

We know the French came - we know the Irish rebels asked for that - but entering into what-ifery about ultimate intentions without any documentary evidence is just stirring the pot IMO.

And besides - from what we DO know of the historic record I don't personally see how the following century could have been any worse - even if the Martians had taken over.

As it was under the British we had no Catholic Emancipation for 30 years [although promised with the Union in 1800], obligatory Tithes to a minority church, The Great Famine with tens of thousands dying in ditches, no basic rights for tenants leading to the Land War - Home Rule denied repeatedly in Parliament ...martial law and the accompanying military house raids for most of the century.

slowburner

More whatifery - but interesting nonetheless
[Embedded Image Removed]

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

More whatifery - but interesting nonetheless
[Embedded Image Removed]

No one is disputing the issue of French invasions -

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

No one is disputing the issue of French invasions -

You'll have to excuse me. I am no historian and I have little to offer on this subject but I am here to learn from the wisdom of others including yourself - if that's ok?

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

This thread looks like it is being derailed by a strawman argument about French intentions - with no proof at all being offered on the point.

We know the French came - we know the Irish rebels asked for that - but entering into what-ifery without any documentary evidence is just stirring the pot IMO.

And besides - from what we DO know of the historic record I don't personally see how the following century could have been any worse - even if the Martians had taken over.

As it was under the British we had no Catholic Emancipation for 30 years [although promised with the Union in 1800], obligatory Tithes to a minority church, The Great Famine with tens of thousands dying in ditches, no basic rights for tenants leading to the Land War - Home Rule denied repeatedly in Parliament ...martial law and the accompanying military house raids for most of the century.

Sounds to me as if you don't like the probability that the French would have taken over and treated the Irish the same way they treated the Belgians, or any other population they conquered.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds to me as if you don't like the probability that the French would have taken over and treated the Irish the same way they treated the Belgians, or any other population they conquered.

What the historic record sounds like to you Fred is pretty bad IMO - so you engage in these side shows.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Never heard about Boney sending another expedition to Ireland. Link/proof ?

As for Trafalgar, the French navy was well down the list of French priorites compared to their army as they were surrounded on all sides by the imperial states of Europe trying to kill the French revoulotion ASAP. In football terms, the French navy could have been described as the third reserves - with many of them Spanish conscripts at that.

He talks about stirring rebellion here http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/omeara_napo_invasion.asp

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

What the historic record sounds like to you Fred is pretty bad IMO - so you engage in these side shows.

1798-the year of the French.

Surely questioning their intentions is a valid discussion point?

Were they benevolent liberators, or a conquering army?