Up close and personal savagery

slowburner

Browsing through this fascinating if macabre thread,
Irish Crime and Punishment - Executions, Irish justice,gallows, folk lore.
brings up an interesting question:
when did we begin to lose the stomach for outright savagery - if we have indeed lost it?
By savagery, I mean the capacity to inflict grievous physical harm to a fellow human being, using hands, or hand held weapons, and the capacity to maim, deface and tear out viscera without a moment's thought.
Reading through the thread, it seemed to me that 1798 saw a peak in this capacity for savage violence, both institutionally and on the streets.
Is it a function of changing weaponry; the transition from cold steel, to lead and powder, perhaps?

Institutional barbarity persisted until the abolition of hanging, drawing and quartering in 1821 (although there's mention here of Thomas Francis Meagher whose sentence in 1848 was commuted).
Not that long ago really.

jonniebgood1

slowburner wrote: »

when did we begin to lose the stomach for outright savagery - if we have indeed lost it?
By savagery, I mean the capacity to inflict grievous physical harm to a fellow human being, using hands, or hand held weapons, and the capacity to maim,

Can we say 1922 and blame the Brits??? :pac:

slowburner

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can we say 1922 and blame the Brits??? :pac:

Don't think so. We were pretty good at it ourselves.

Cardinal Richelieu

We haven't lost it. would we still have murder if we had lost it? The scissors sisters etc

slowburner

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

We haven't lost it. would we still have murder if we had lost it? The scissors sisters etc

Fair point, but they were outside the norm - it's more about when up close and personal savagery was commonplace, or acceptable. Isolated incidents like the scissors sisters were shocking to the public, who hopefully, find that sort of dismemberment incomprehensible.
Would it be easy today to find someone so dehumanised that they were capable of cutting someone's head off?
I doubt it, but there would have been no shortage of applicants for the post of executioner up to the early C.19th.

OS119

could it be something as banal as how we get our food?

my grandmother had chickens all her life - she was utterly at home breaking necks and scooping out out the gopping bits - yet i, a rufty-tufty soldier, have done it half a dozen times and it makes me very queasy.

if you're from an environment where death is your neighbour - chilldhood mortality and life expectancy of 45 - and most people are up to their elblows in viscera every other day, are you just a bit more 'meh' about the gory bits?

Cardinal Richelieu

OS119 wrote: »

could it be something as banal as how we get our food?

my grandmother had chickens all her life - she was utterly at home breaking necks and scooping out out the gopping bits - yet i, a rufty-tufty soldier, have done it half a dozen times and it makes me very queasy.

if you're from an environment where death is your neighbour - chilldhood mortality and life expectancy of 45 - and most people are up to their elblows in viscera every other day, are you just a bit more 'meh' about the gory bits?

Might be, a friend worked in a meat plant that had its own slaughter house, they use to have to rotate the people on the kill line because it would get to them. They had a 2 hour video of animal killing as part of the induction to desensitise and prepare them for working the kill line. But they would get one or two individuals that would enjoy the line and didn't want to be moved after they had done there bit. I know of a fellow who was on a chicken kill line for over 30 years and refused to be moved because he enjoyed the job. Perfect executioner material!:D

meganj

OS119 wrote: »

if you're from an environment where death is your neighbour - chilldhood mortality and life expectancy of 45 - and most people are up to their elblows in viscera every other day, are you just a bit more 'meh' about the gory bits?

I think if your a butcher you can't serve on a jury, because you wouldn't be phased by all the blood and guts.

I do think it's probably a relatively trival/simple answer to do with the change in our society. But I think if you're talking about 'state sanctioned' violence (i.e. executions instead of murders) I think as a global society now we have lost interest in the state (the big guy) physically punishing it's citizens (or little guys).

For me there's very little to be gained by state sanctioned physical punishment, it doesn't deter crime, and people do (as we see now) lose their appetite for it.

Being that executions used to be held in public, with people baying for blood and heads, since they moved to a private sphere they became less sport for the masses and more an exercise in the state's power. This change from the arena/gallows to the electric chair or prison could be the key!

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can we say 1922 and blame the Brits??? :pac:

Sir - for a moderator you are not very impartial, are you?

Your choice of subject matter for threads that you have started seem to be based all too often on Anglo-Irish conflicts, past, present and who knows, maybe even the future. Your comments in response to a hitherto impartial thread like this one, for instance - are they meant to be amusing?

Or are you just poking, to see who bites back?

I'm only 1/8th British, but it's getting to me, and that's for sure.

tac, biting

Manach

From my legal studies,that we we have never lost it, it was taken away by the State. Historically, Gallow's day was a riotous affair. Whole families going to enjoy the spectacle of watching the criminals being dealt with in a final manner.
The convict was the star attraction, being feted only as those with nothing left to live for - in return he even provided feedback and played along with the crowds in the final act - turning the day into one giant riot. This was inimical to the ruling authorities so in the interests of "Public safety" and morality, it was moved to within the prison complex. (- source Itune Berkeley legal studies 160 )

Seanchai

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - for a moderator you are not very impartial, are you?

Your choice of subject matter for threads that you have started seem to be based all too often on Anglo-Irish conflicts, past, present and who knows, maybe even the future. Your comments in response to a hitherto impartial thread like this one, for instance - are they meant to be amusing?

Or are you just poking, to see who bites back?

I'm only 1/8th British, but it's getting to me, and that's for sure.

tac, biting

1) You omitted to mention the part where you have been a self-confessed member of the British crown forces who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the institutionally sectarian British monarch and who has served in its armed forces against native peoples, including against the Irish in British occupied Ireland, for many years. That fact is rather germane to your views on things British and Irish, I'd suggest.


2) You clearly misunderstand the mod you mention; as anybody with a basic understanding of the importance of the year 1922 would tell you the Irish Civil War started in 1922 and the link he alluded to was referring to the 'institutional barbarity' of the new Irish state, not to your heroes in the British state. He was making a snide, superficial, historically retarded comment in favour of your side and against the Irish. It was typical of that poster's pro-British political stance, as shown clearly in the renaming of, and infractions handed out in, this joke of a thread. You should be happy, if you had the wit to understand what was going on.

slowburner

This post

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can we say 1922 and blame the Brits??? :pac:

is simply a sardonic prediction of how the subject will inevitably spawn posts like this.

Seanchai wrote: »

1) You omitted to mention the part where you have been a self-confessed member of the British crown forces who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the institutionally sectarian British monarch and who has served in its armed forces against native peoples, including against the Irish in British occupied Ireland, for many years. That fact is rather germane to your views on things British and Irish, I'd suggest.


2) You clearly misunderstand the mod you mention; as anybody with a basic understanding of the importance of the year 1922 would tell you the Irish Civil War started in 1922 and the link he alluded to was referring to the 'institutional barbarity' of the new Irish state, not to your heroes in the British state. He was making a snide, superficial, historically retarded comment in favour of your side and against the Irish. It was typical of that poster's pro-British political stance, as shown clearly in the renaming of, and infractions handed out in, this joke of a thread. You should be happy, if you had the wit to understand what was going on.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


It's a fascinating concept that as we move further away from the processes involved in meat production, we possibly become less tolerant of butchery - in all its forms.
CDfm's post here links to a cullinary tale:



Common sense would tell us that if you're used to dispatching animals with your own hands, desensitisation to dealing out death to fellow humans is likely to follow.
Following that logic to its conclusion, we should be able to predict that vegetarians are less likely to be capable of physical cruelty.
Or are they?
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/revHitler.html


(Godwin's law by the 12th post - mea culpa)

cormacocomhrai

slowburner wrote: »

Browsing through this fascinating if macabre thread,
Irish Crime and Punishment - Executions, Irish justice,gallows, folk lore.
brings up an interesting question:
when did we begin to lose the stomach for outright savagery - if we have indeed lost it?
By savagery, I mean the capacity to inflict grievous physical harm to a fellow human being, using hands, or hand held weapons, and the capacity to maim, deface and tear out viscera without a moment's thought.
Reading through the thread, it seemed to me that 1798 saw a peak in this capacity for savage violence, both institutionally and on the streets.
Is it a function of changing weaponry; the transition from cold steel, to lead and powder, perhaps?

Institutional barbarity persisted until the abolition of hanging, drawing and quartering in 1821 (although there's mention here of Thomas Francis Meagher whose sentence in 1848 was commuted).
Not that long ago really.

apologies if this has already been said in the thread from which this thread originated but:

Don't forget that that kind of brutality was often public and was accompanied by huge crowds. There's a folk memory of a British soldier, an Irishman called Hempenstahl, who was known as the walking gallows who used to hang '98 rebels off his back. This was supposedly done in front of crowds of the gentry. They were all hardly used to killing chickens.
I'd say the fear of famine, eviction, diceases and the general violence in society had a lot to do with it. The state violence at the time was a way for a state, with very limited control, to make sure that it made a lasting impression with its power on people, who could also behave with incredible savagry in times of social upheaval. It's possible that the violence of executions declined as the state gained increasing control over the lives of people through its institutions: schools, prisons, police, Churches etc.

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can we say 1922 and blame the Brits??? :pac:

Sir - for a moderator you are not very impartial, are you?

Your choice of subject matter for threads that you have started seem to be based all too often on Anglo-Irish conflicts, past, present and who knows, maybe even the future. Your comments in response to a hitherto impartial thread like this one, for instance - are they meant to be amusing?

Or are you just poking, to see who bites back?

I'm only 1/8th British, but it's getting to me, and that's for sure.

tac, biting

Tac,

The comment was (meant) to be light hearted. The symbol at the end of the comment should have been a clue as to this. My aim was certainly not to annoy you but I thought the nature of the comment was clear. Sometimes it is no harm to look at history in a more light hearted way.

If it helps clarify matters I do not genuinely think that all savagery ended when British rule in Ireland (Rep. of) came to an end.

As for being impartial, I am not. I try to be fair and to look at things from both perspectives but I have my inherent views on many issues like most people. Threads on Anglo-Irish conflicts will always be common on an Irish history forum, as will Irish referenced comments on threads. There should be no problem with this- rather it is to be expected.

Ash.J.Williams

The Civil war had large elements of brutal activity, state sponsered too.

Stovepipe

Slowburner, when you say we, do you mean Irish people in particular or humanity in general? I can think of several instances in modern history where the deliberate infliction of mutilation, such as the severing of ears, was common, such as ear-collecting in Vietnam and more recently in the Balkan wars or the still routine use of deliberate amputation of limbs and ears in African conflicts.

regards
Stovepipe

tac foley

For those interested, my father, a Cork man, was imprisoned at the age of 17 and bit for his part in blowing up an RIC barracks. He was freed at the Truce, and joined the FSA, where he spent the next year or so wondering if he was going to have to shoot his younger brother who had decided to fight on the other side.

@ Johnnybegood - my Japanese computer does not 'see' emoticons on Windows OS - I 'spose I really should get around to replacing it sometime, but I have other priorities. I take your points onboard, having made mine. As is well-known - 'on the internet you cannot see sarcasm'.

@Seanchai - I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-confessed member of the British Crown Forces' as though I had something to be ashamed of. Not ashamed of a single second of it, me. Being British yourself, probably a lot more than I am, you too are eligible to join, should you care to do so. Give it a try, you might even like it and should, being British, have no problems about the Oath of Allegiance - also taken by any officer of the Crown services, BTW, from police officer to coastguard to customs inspector.

I'm also quite clever, in spite of frequent comments to the contrary. I'm reminded just how smart I am every time I look at my letterhead.

Take care, and don't let your prejudices kick you up the a$$.

tac

mikemac1

There is an excellent TV show out called Garrows Law
Was about William Garrow, a barrister back in the late 18th and early 19th century

The trials back then were swift and brutal. Could be over in less then 10 minutes

And it was about keeping people down, the authorities terrified of the people

For example if a lady servant murders someone she would hang, ok everyone knows this.
But if she killed her employer that's not murder, that is petty treason and she would be sentenced to be burned alive
A murder of a superior by a servant was held up to be even worse then just a simple murder.

12 year old lads being hanged That was the most upsetting part.



Anyway Garrows Law, there are three series out.
Up on the internet if you know where to look
Ireland was under the same legal system at the time so I think it's relevant. And even the top Irish barristers had to be attached to one of the Inns in London so relevant again


Garrow was a reformer and was credited partly for the adversarial system we have and "innocent until proven guilty"
Though in later life he was appointed to a senior position and became super conservative and started to row back on many of the reforms he had pushed for

jonniebgood1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Anyway Garrows Law, there are three series out.
Up on the internet if you know where to look
Ireland was under the same legal system at the time so I think it's relevant. And even the top Irish barristers had to be attached to one of the Inns in London so relevant again

Garrows law may have given context but it was not real, i.e. it was a scripted show based on modern perceptions of the time using actual legal cases.

The development of the legal system is a good parallel. In the 19th century kids could be imprisoned for months for stealing bread. Punishments were hard and so were the conditions. Kilmainham Gaol has records of many children incarcerated in same harsh conditions as the adult population. While the 1916 rising leaders are most famous there was hundreds of executions carried out in its early years.

slowburner

Stovepipe wrote: »

Slowburner, when you say we, do you mean Irish people in particular or humanity in general? I can think of several instances in modern history where the deliberate infliction of mutilation, such as the severing of ears, was common, such as ear-collecting in Vietnam and more recently in the Balkan wars or the still routine use of deliberate amputation of limbs and ears in African conflicts.

regards
Stovepipe

I asked myself the very same question after submitting the thread.

The sorts of incidents you mention like My Lai, are again isolated, against the norm, and the state saw them as such.
It's really about a time when people were not shocked by the sorts of violence that we would find sickening today.
If that is best answered by reference to the history of these islands, fine.

I suppose if the thread had to be confined to one culture (for whatever reason) then it should be Western culture, because Western culture has largely foregone barbaric practices like beheading.
Quite where hanging fits into all of this, I'm not sure.

mikemac1

There were rules that were accepted though

If a town was besieged it could be given the opportunity to surrender
During the Napoleononic wars there was a lot of etiquette over this, gentlemanly rules and handing over your sword.

The ranks would be carted off as prisoners but the officers could given parole and were free to wander around the camp, after all a gentleman would never try to escape and break their word :cool:

However if the city refused to surrender then all bets were off.
Once siege equipment touched the wall it was the point of no return, surrender would not be accepted.
I may be getting mixed up here, I've heard this "rule" before but it might have gone back to Roman times

Anyway Siege of Badajoz happened in Spain close in the Portuguese border in the Peninsular War of 1812.
Wellingtons forces took heavy casualties, any assaulting force would have.
To lead the attack was practically suicide so troops and officers volunteered for that role.

The succeeded and three days of rape, pillage and murder followed and estimates of 4,000 Spaniards killed

As so a warning went out, surrender or else

Blame can be put on the officers but it's debatable if they were even able to control their men.
After an assault the troops can get in a frenzy and who can stop that?

Captain Robert Blakeney wrote:

'The infuriated soldiery resembled rather a pack of hell hounds vomited up from infernal regions for the extirpation of mankind than what they were but twelve short hours previously – a well-organised, brave, disciplined and obedient British Army, and burning only with impatience for what is called glory

Wellington erected a gallows as a warning to the men but no troops were ever punished by the provosts

Ash.J.Williams

this......

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

pedroeibar1

What happened in warfare and in public life were slightly different but the underlying fact is that there was widespread acceptance of what we now regard as cruelty. Ordinary people were much more hardened to punishment, particularly up to the Industrial Revolution. That changed everything, because production methods allowed for the cheap(ish) mass production of firearms, which allowed for ‘killing at a distance’. Prior to that era daily life was much closer to death – lack of effective medical treatments (some of which were more detrimental than curative), high infant mortality, no animal welfare acts, etc. Lack of refrigeration meant that dinner was often killed in the home, even until recent years with the ‘killing of the pig’. With the movement of country people to the cities they brought a protein food supply with them – often rabbits, which, as wealth grew, became pets. The cuddly bunny brigade was born.

Wars were fought on set rules; individual combat in medieval times evolved into set-piece troop manoeuvres, ‘rules of engagement’ and gentlemanly behaviour, such as parole. That avoided mass bloodshed and worked when an enemy was given respect as such. That was not always the case, as I posted before on Cromwell’s campaign in Ireland. His terms were simple, surrender or be killed :

Governor Colonel Hewson took Lawlinbrideg (Leighlinbridge) and marched with a strong party to meet the Lord Lieutenant at Gouran (Gowran). The combined forces marched and entered the Town without opposition on March 19. The Castle would not yield and after “a strong dispute” upon one attempt to storm, the common soldiers (that they might have quarter for themselves) delivered up their officers, viz. Col, Hamson, Major Townly, two Capts. one quartermaster, one lieutenant and a priest.” The officers were shot and the priest hanged. [WHITELOCK, Sir Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs, page 450]

Outside of warfare arbitrary death was common, e.g. about a hundred years later, the death in 1766 of the anti-tithe Fr. Sheehy in Clonmel who was hanged for murder and treason (crimes that had little basis, no reliable witnesses and no proof) show both a scant regard for Law and no humanity.

Another hundred years on, (and ignoring the hundreds of deaths from faction fighting) in July 1850 a young married woman, Margaret Doyle, of Scott's Lane, Limerick was sentenced to seven years transportation for stealing a loaf of bread from a shop. In her defence it was stated that her husband was disabled as a result of a civil works accident (he had been employed on a Famine Relief project building quays in Limerick) and her two children were starving. She, with her two infants, was transported to Hobart, Tasmania. Her husband was refused permission to accompany her. He never saw her again.

Public executions were comparable to today’s street festivals, and were only stopped on the 29th May 1868 when Parliament passed the Capital Punishment (Amendment) Act, which ended public hanging. The fight against it had been underway for decades, a key ‘repealer’ being Charles Dickens who mentions it in several books and his letter to the Editor of ‘The Times’ on 14 November 1849 (following the Bermondsey case) is a good historic account:

"Sir — I was a witness of the execution at Horsemonger-lane this morning. I went there with the intention of observing the crowd gathered to behold it, and I had excellent opportunities of doing so, at intervals all through the night, and continuously from daybreak until after the spectacle was over.
"I believe that a sight so inconceivably awful as the wickedness and levity of the immense crowd collected at that execution this morning could be imagined by no man, and could be presented in no heathen land under the sun. The horrors of the gibbet and of the crime which brought the wretched murderers to it, faded in my mind before the atrocious bearing, looks and language, of the assembled spectators. When I came upon the scene at midnight, the shrillness of the cries and howls that were raised from time to time, denoting that they came from a coucourse of boys and girls already assembled in the best places, made my blood run cold. As the night went on, screeching, and laughing, and yelling in strong chorus of parodies on Negro melodies, with substitutions of "Mrs. Manning" for "Susannah," and the like, were added to these. When the day dawned, thieves, low prostitutes, ruffians and vagabonds of every kind, flocked on to the ground, with every variety of offensive and foul behaviour. Fightings, faintings, whistlings, imitations of Punch, brutal jokes, tumultuous demonstrations of indecent delight when swooning women were dragged out of the crowd by the police with their dresses disordered, gave a new zest to the general entertainment. When the sun rose brightly—as it did—it gilded thousands upon thousands of upturned faces, so inexpressibly odious in their brutal mirth or callousness, that a man had cause to feel ashamed of the shape he wore, and to shrink from himself, as fashioned in the image of the Devil. When the two miserable creatures who attracted all this ghastly sight about them were turned quivering into the air, there was no more emotion, no more pity, no more thought that two immortal souls had gone to judgment, no more restraint in any of the previous obscenities, than if the name of Christ had never been heard in this world, and there were no belief among men but that they perished like the beasts.
"I am solemnly convinced that nothing that ingenuity could devise to be done in this city, in the same compass of time, could work such ruin as one public execution, and I stand astounded and appalled by the wickedness it exhibits. I do not believe that any community can prosper where such a scene of horror and demoralization as was enacted this morning outside Horsemonger-lane Gaol is presented at the very doors of good citizens, and is passed by, unknown or forgotten."

FWIW I shoot and have no qualms about killing my dinner; however, it is not a pleasant feeling when one has to finish off a wounded bird with a ‘priest’.

Seanchai

tac foley wrote: »

For those interested, my father...

I doubt anybody is interested in the claims of an anonymous person on an internet forum.... Moreover, is this claim about another person meant to be some pathetic claim to your own Irishness? Really, is this the best claim to Irishness you can make for yourself when real Irish people don't take too kindly to your admission that you have been a member of the British crown forces?

tac foley wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-confessed member of the British Crown Forces' as though I had something to be ashamed of. Not ashamed of a single second of it

I see from your other posts that you indeed claim to be quite proud of your role in the British state's war machine in Ireland. The fact that you claim to have been fighting "terrorism" in Ireland when you were fighting the latest generation of native Irish forces of resistance to British colonial rule speaks volumes for how collaboration and anti-Irishness are firmly part of your existence. In your heart of hearts you know your ignominious position in Irish history and your bravado of "not ashamed of it" is merely an acknowledgement that the only friends you now have are those who followed the same path as you and shared that guilt with you. All quite pathetic, really.

tac foley wrote: »

Being British yourself, probably a lot more than I am

Trying to bring real Irish people (that is, people who didn't feel the need to betray Irish sovereignty by joining the British military) down to your own level of treachery and anti-Irishness, I see. Classic. Sorry, but you're going to have to seek solace for your treachery elsewhere rather than projecting it on to Irish people who are loyal to Ireland rather than to the British monarchy as you have sworn to be.

tac foley wrote: »

you too are eligible to join, should you care to do so. Give it a try, you might even like it and should, being British, have no problems about the Oath of Allegiance

What are you shíteing on about. Really. Are you alright in the head?

tac foley wrote: »

I'm also quite clever, in spite of frequent comments to the contrary. I'm reminded just how smart I am every time I look at my letterhead.

Oh. My. God. Sweet Jesus. Are you some parody for the most educationally insecure person on the planet? First, see my comment about claims by an anonymous person on the internet. Second, people who have achieved something rarely feel the need to brag about it; their talents tend to show over time. Third, being able to read and write English may constitute "clever" by your standards but for most Irish people it's taken as a given. In fact, going to third level is also normal for us, as backward as you patently think we are.

tac foley wrote: »

Take care, and don't let your prejudices kick you up the a$$.

Judging by your repeatedly expressed views against all the Irish people who have resisted the British forces of occupation in Ireland that you are a member of, I think we can take it we are dealing with somebody who has considerable personal expertise when it comes to prejudices.

jonniebgood1

Seanchai wrote: »

Originally Posted by tac foley View Post
you too are eligible to join, should you care to do so. Give it a try, you might even like it and should, being British, have no problems about the Oath of Allegiance

What are you shíteing on about. Really. Are you alright in the head?

There is no need for this type of goading and countering in this thread.
Both users are asked to concentrate on the topic and not each other.
If this request is ignored myself (or dubhtacht) will have to interfere. This is not our preferred option.

Moderator

dubhthach

Seanchai wrote: »

I doubt anybody is interested in the claims of an anonymous person on an internet forum.... Moreover, is this claim about another person meant to be some pathetic claim to your own Irishness? Really, is this the best claim to Irishness you can make for yourself when real Irish people don't take too kindly to your admission that you have been a member of the British crown forces? ....

Infracted -- Personal abuse isn't allowed on this forum, please read the charter or I will be forced to ban you.

-Mod

Fuinseog

Brodir killed Brian Boru and when the Irish caught up with him they made sure to catch him alive. they slit open his stomach, wrapped his entrails around a tree and watched him die.

pedroeibar1

I quoted a letter from Charles Dickens a few posts above (#23). Between 1827 and 1899 there were 529 hangings in Ireland, most of which were public executions. Is there any evidence that the crowd behaviour in Ireland was similar or different to that at the execution described by Dickens?

thecommietommy

tac foley wrote: »

For those interested, my father, a Cork man, was imprisoned at the age of 17 and bit for his part in blowing up an RIC barracks. He was freed at the Truce, and joined the FSA, where he spent the next year or so wondering if he was going to have to shoot his younger brother who had decided to fight on the other side.

@ Johnnybegood - my Japanese computer does not 'see' emoticons on Windows OS - I 'spose I really should get around to replacing it sometime, but I have other priorities. I take your points onboard, having made mine. As is well-known - 'on the internet you cannot see sarcasm'.

@Seanchai - I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-confessed member of the British Crown Forces' as though I had something to be ashamed of. Not ashamed of a single second of it, me. Being British yourself, probably a lot more than I am, you too are eligible to join, should you care to do so. Give it a try, you might even like it and should, being British, have no problems about the Oath of Allegiance - also taken by any officer of the Crown services, BTW, from police officer to coastguard to customs inspector.

I'm also quite clever, in spite of frequent comments to the contrary. I'm reminded just how smart I am every time I look at my letterhead.

Take care, and don't let your prejudices kick you up the a$$.

tac

You forgot to mention and correct me if I'm wrong, but you also claimed in other posts a while ago your father allegedly went to England and allegedly joined the British army later in the 1920's/30's ? And you also claim to be Jewish and have a PHd, is the PHd in history ?

slowburner

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I quoted a letter from Charles Dickens a few posts above (#23). Between 1827 and 1899 there were 529 hangings in Ireland, most of which were public executions. Is there any evidence that the crowd behaviour in Ireland was similar or different to that at the execution described by Dickens?

You'd imagine that the reasons for execution were largely different in either jurisdiction.
Interesting question, which would require a fair bit of work to answer.

pedroeibar1

slowburner wrote: »

You'd imagine that the reasons for execution were largely different in either jurisdiction.

Not really, most Irish hangings were for ordinary capital offences; agreed that some were for crimes against landlords/agents, which might have been viewed more ‘sympathetically’ by the crowd, but the majority were the outcome of premeditated murders or plain brawls. I’ve looked at some in Ireland in the era immediately post-Famine but the few newspaper reports I’ve seen are solemn and rather sanctimonious, with the usual platitudes, on the lines of ‘The unfortunate criminals appeared resigned to their fate and gave earnest attention to the spiritual consolations administered by the clergy’ – and while they mention ‘great multitudes’ there are no reports of partying.
On the other hand, the English hangings I’ve looked at seem to have been festive occasions, with a fairground atmosphere. The hanging of the Fenians (Manchester Martyrs)William Allen, Michael Larkin and Michael O'Brien in Salford Nov. 1867 took place in front of a crowd estimated at 8-10,000 and I suppose their offence (murdering a policeman) and their nationality/political belief gave the crowd an excuse to be more festive:-

..........About ten o'clock large crowds began to gather in the streets immediately in the neighbourhood of the scaffold, but the outer barrier arrested all further progress, and then these Englishmen sat down. ..............hot potatoes which were being cooked in enormous quantities by machines resembling fire-engines. ................ Cans of beer and lumps of cheese; hot potatoes and squares of bacon; steaming pies and odorous onions- hodge-podges of marvellous and heterogeneous confusion were discussed and consumed with a gusto that only the eve of an execution can bring ................. Females sat in these gatherings, and joined in these disgusting festivals as confidently as if that were the scene for woman. Young lads and girls sported in high glee in front of the glaring gas jet that told of the beer-cellar and youthful lips rang out the ready oath that spoke the culture of degraded parents. A strong contrast was found in the stolid, stupid, besotted mass that leaned against the barricade; it stirred not, breathed not, spoke not- but patiently awaited the chance of improving their position, and with unruffled and bovine quiet, stayed out the weary night to witness the strangulation of three human beings. Just before the barricade a wall of policemen prevented the possibility of entrance. ............... the crowd that hoarsely shouted in reckless blasphemy, or roared a line of drunken song, or warmly disputed the possession of food, or hotly quarrelled for the right to drink..... (From the rather partisan Irish Catholic Chronicle And People's News of the Week. Dublin, Saturday 30 November 1867)

Back to the NLI archives I suppose.....