Year of the French 1798

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?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

1798-the year of the French.

Surely questioning their intentions is a valid discussion point?

Were they benevolent liberators, or a conquering army?

But you bring nothing to the historic discussion but your 'question' based on nothing but what-ifery and then shoot down any valid answer about what is actually ON the historic record. Because? You don't like the actual record? Or need to direct discussion away from it?

Sounds to me like you are just out to make a row and derail any valid discussion. Your tactic seems to be to ignore what Ireland actually experienced under the British and 'invent' - yes, 'invent'- another scenario of life under the French? For what purpose but to sidetrack and derail the actual historic discussion.

MarchDub

Almost every insurrection in Ireland dating to the earliest times after the Anglo-Norman invasion involved asking for outside help from other armies. It is a common practice in European history - even Charles II of England was lining up an Irish Army against Cromwell. Look at the history of all wars - allies are central to the offense and defence.

To suggest therefore that what happened in 1798 was an unique historic experience and therefore worthy of 'unique' questioning of the helpers intentions is simply bad history.

slowburner

HellsAngel wrote: »

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

Here's some background information on the North Cork Militia - I'm not sure what area the "North Riding" of Cork would have encompassed.


The North Cork Regiment (no. 34) was raised by government levy from the north Riding of county Cork between April and June 1793.
It comprised of 26 officers, 24 sergeants, 16 drummers, 12 fifers and 446 rank and file.

From the Army List, January 1794:-

Colonel Commandant - Viscount Kingsborough.
Lieutenant-Colonel - Lord Kinsale.
Major - John Newenham.

Captains
John Wallis, David Franks, James Lombard, Richard Foote*, Edward Heard.
Captain-Lieutenant - Honourable William de Courcey

* later Lieutenant-Colonel at Oulart
note; no mention of Captains Snowe or Drurey who defended Enniscorthy bridge.

Lieutenants
Charles Vinters, Stephen O'Hea, John O'Hea, John Norcott (these four I think, were at Oulart) William Johnston, Michael Stewart, James Glover, David Williams*.
Ensigns.
Michael Rourke, Thomas Paye, Isaac Silletto, Thomas H. Justice, Charles Barry*, John Roe.

*Williams and Barry were killed at Oulart


Chaplain - Rev. T. Barry
Adjutant - Honble. Wm. De Courcey
Quartermaster - Charles Vinters
Surgeon -Daniel Williams

Uniform - Red, Facings yellow


The regiment was stationed in Limerick until early 1796. Then in Kilkenny for nine months and then to Naas. They were then one the first regiments to enter Dublin in the aftermath of Edward Fitzgerald's arrest (18th May 1797). At this time they were quartered in the George's street Barracks.
On the 23rd of May 1798, 432 of the militia formed in Stephen's Green and proceeded to guard approaches to the city.
A detachment of 60 men were at Prosperous, Kildare on the 24th along with captain Swayne.
After that, their actions at Oulart, New Ross, Enniscorthy, Arklow and Vinegar hill are well documented.

As regards the numbers of Catholics in the regiment, I have yet to find a good reference; however, it appears that the following men were suspected of having republican sympathies - Harvey, Keogh, Colclough and Grogan (christian names unavailable). There is a story about Colclough in particular, which might be worth investigating. It seems that there was a significant defection from the NCM at Wexford.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Almost every insurrection in Ireland dating to the earliest times after the Anglo-Norman invasion involved asking for outside help from other armies. It is a common practice in European history - even Charles II of England was lining up an Irish Army against Cromwell. Look at the history of all wars - allies are central to the offense and defence.

To suggest therefore that what happened in 1798 was an unique historic experience and therefore worthy of 'unique' questioning of the helpers intentions is simply bad history.

And every single one of those (and pretty much every other alliance throughout history) was due in main to ulterior motives.

Surely understanding why they came is important? I don't think anyone would claim the French helped the united Irishmen as an act of humanity, but what were the exact reasons behind it?

Was it simply as part of the wider conflict in europe? Was it to spread republicanism as Bonparte claimed an invasion of England would do?

You talked of catholic emancipation and it is well known the RC church spoke out against the uprising, but how did the French invasion of the Papal States sit with the Catholic Irish?

pavb2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

1798-the year of the French

Were they benevolent liberators, or a conquering army?

I'd say neither I think they saw it as an opportunity (albeit with much lobbying from the United Irishmen) to be a proverbial thorn in the side to Britain while the Bonaparte, Nelson and Egypt saga was played out.

As mentioned by others the previous attempts at landing seemed to be more of a liberating or conquering army depending on your view.

slowburner

Surely hypothesis (you could belittle the cognitive exercise by calling it 'whatifery' if you were so inclined)
is an invaluable tool in history, just as it is in science?
Without hypothesis there is no enquiry, without enquiry, there is no need for answers.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely understanding why they came is important? I don't think anyone would claim the French helped the united Irishmen as an act of humanity, but what were the exact reasons behind it?

Understanding their reasons is important. We need evidence of an ulterior motive though before accepting it.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Understanding their reasons is important. We need evidence of an ulterior motive though before accepting it.

Good article here http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac04

I like the line "France's republicanism, whilst popular, didn't come cheap".

There were no countries that France invaded that weren't also looted and in several cases the looting included forced conscription. http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Belgians_in_French_Army.html

tyler71

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

My apologies to both HellsAngel and Nhead for not mentioning the Down and Kildare events, also for the events mentioned in Cork and Wicklow. I suppose this makes the point of the OP and as was mentioned elsewhere, that this is a bit of a forgotten event and that we just get taught in school about Wexford and the events in other localities are just remembered locally, when this was really a large national event.
As to the French intentions, I doubt if the Irish had any illusions on that score, but would have been willing to deal with them down the line if they could get rid of the British influence. I'm curious though, would the French still have been seen as a Catholic nation at that stage or anti-clerical as was mentioned?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good article here http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac04

I like the line "France's republicanism, whilst popular, didn't come cheap".

There were no countries that France invaded that weren't also looted and in several cases the looting included forced conscription. http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Belgians_in_French_Army.html

Maybe we should have an English vs the French thread.

Really, the French interest was an ongoing feud between the Frogs and Les Rosbifs

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/bayonet_battles.htm

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


A suggestion may be that Wexford history locally was a tad more complex than just sectarian and was probably more "tribal" in the purist sense of the word.

If you look at Wexford it was a Viking Town taken over by the Normans.

Ferns, was McMurroughs stronghold. The Diosece of Ferns was created to create an anglo-norman base that got right up the McMurroughs nose.

You even have a bunch of the original Norman stalworths "the Yola people" (with their own language and identity) that I am descended from and whose sole role was strategic to keep the McMurroughs in check. The Yola language is still in some hymn's used locally.

Now, this stuff continued from the original Norman Invasion and landholdings control etc changed hands etc thru the Tudor Wars and beyond .

The McMurroughs allying with the Butlers and others with the Fitzgeralds and so on. Aoife McMurrough (Mrs Strongbow) was an ancestor of both Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Robert Emmet.

People who were granted lands could not take control of it. This continued until the William and Mary ascendency at various levels. It may have been settled but the old emnities were still in place.

And, there were greviences about land grants and ownership.

That the families were sucessful in staying put is without doubt as my bunch were/are still in the same area and farmed in the same area until recently.

Any account will give you a list of names, irish,norman and english from the various settlements etc

http://books.google.ie/books?id=GgNcAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=1798+wexford+and+the+sufferings+and+escape+of+charles+jackson&hl=en&ei=LyxGTrCYE4uDhQf9vti_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

(The leaders were for the most part from the Anglo-Irish Ascendency except for Wexford and that in itself is an issue as someine had managed to really piss off a local priest.)

The impression that what happened in Wexford was purely sectarian is lazy history as there is a very complex local history that is unique. Everytime you had a change of English administration you had land grants etc and mini local civil wars for control and 1798 tapped into.

So,in my opinion, 1798 Wexford was like the culmination of 6 centuries of messy micro-managing local control by the "English" that all went wrong.

That one of the real nasty protestant militia guys Charles Tottenham had been to France and had been in trouble there pre 1798,had been rescued by a Wexford priest Fr Crane , and went on to give land for church building post 1798 indicates its complexity.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=I2zNMo8YTDEC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=crane+and+tottenham+and+wexford&source=bl&ots=bMWS1l3MYR&sig=Q33vqLBH2aXUTtYZrl49lylo5gc&hl=en&ei=FjhGTtChPIOYhQf1lZWuBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=crane%20and%20tottenham%20and%20wexford&f=false