British Shelled the Four Courts

Crooked Jack

I see that somebody brought this up earlier but the thread was locked due to the type of language used.
However, I feel this is an interesting development and well worth discussing.
Basically this article

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1030/1224325896303.html?via=mr

suggests that not only did Collins use British guns to shell the Four Courts, an already well know fact, but that actual British soldiers were used as well.
The British were essentially involved in the first major engagement of the Civil War.
I think it raises a number of interesting questions.
Does it change your opinion of Collins and the Free State forces?
Were the British pulling the strings of the Civil War?
Had this been known at the time would it have swayed public opinion in favour of the Republican side? etc...

So what does everybody think or does it matter at all? I know these discussions can get heated, which is fine, but try and keep it civilised so this thread doesn't get locked.

Thanks

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I think it raises a number of interesting questions.
Does it change your opinion of Collins and the Free State forces?

Collins was on the side of compromise- this meant compromising with the British side in any case. Former military barracks were used by the free state army as were other equipments. Adding the use of artillery to this does not significantly alter any of the widely established facts in regard of the era. The detail in the memoir seems to suggest that having marched all the way from Fermanagh to Dublin the unit involved shot just 2 rounds before retiring and then shipping back to Wales which seems a bit strange also. Why only 2 rounds and if his account is reliable then is shooting 2 rounds significant without other accounts.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Were the British pulling the strings of the Civil War?
Had this been known at the time would it have swayed public opinion in favour of the Republican side? etc...

I dont think so to either of these suggestions. As per the linked article "The British pressure had increased after the June 18th referendum on the Treaty, which the pro-Treaty side won by 239,193 first-preference votes to 133,864 – a result giving Collins democratic legitimacy."
If this type of action had been widespread it may well have swayed opinion. It was not, as most actions by the pro-treaty side were carried out by the free-states own army and saw Irishmen against Irishmen rather than units of the British army.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Collins was on the side of compromise- this meant compromising with the British side in any case. Former military barracks were used by the free state army as were other equipments. Adding the use of artillery to this does not significantly alter any of the widely established facts in regard of the era. The detail in the memoir seems to suggest that having marched all the way from Fermanagh to Dublin the unit involved shot just 2 rounds before retiring and then shipping back to Wales which seems a bit strange also. Why only 2 rounds and if his account is reliable then is shooting 2 rounds significant without other accounts.

I dont think so to either of these suggestions. As per the linked article "The British pressure had increased after the June 18th referendum on the Treaty, which the pro-Treaty side won by 239,193 first-preference votes to 133,864 – a result giving Collins democratic legitimacy."
If this type of action had been widespread it may well have swayed opinion. It was not, as most actions by the pro-treaty side were carried out by the free-states own army and saw Irishmen against Irishmen rather than units of the British army.

Yes but regardless of the number of shots fired surely the very fact that British troops were employed against fellow Irishmen in any capacity would have had a defining effect on the not insignificant number of people who found themselves on the fence during the civil war.
The referendum probably gave the free state some legitimacy on paper but you must remember the circumstances the referendum was held in. Britain had threatened to bring the full might of its imperial military down on a beleaguered and war weary population if they didn't ratify it, with Macready threatening to "shoot 100 Sinn feiners a day," Sinn feiner of course meaning everyone and anyone.
This was a referendum held at the barrel of a gun so it's quite possible a significant number of those who voted yes, if not the vast majority, we're doing so under duress. Would they have stuck by that vote if it had been revealed the British and the free staters were fighting side by side or would that have been a step too far for many?

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes but regardless of the number of shots fired surely the very fact that British troops were employed against fellow Irishmen in any capacity would have had a defining effect on the not insignificant number of people who found themselves on the fence during the civil war.
The referendum probably gave the free state some legitimacy on paper but you must remember the circumstances the referendum was held in.

British equipment and artillery were known to be used. I can see your point but its not a huge jump from what is widely accepted about British arms support to the free state side. I would also give credit to the people of the time that they understood their acceptance of the treaty was a compromise from their ideals, that is more than just a minor form of legitimacy.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Basically this article ... suggests that not only did Collins use British guns to shell the Four Courts, an already well know fact, but that actual British soldiers were used as well.
The British were essentially involved in the first major engagement of the Civil War.
I think it raises a number of interesting questions.
Does it change your opinion of Collins and the Free State forces?
Were the British pulling the strings of the Civil War?
Had this been known at the time would it have swayed public opinion in favour of the Republican side? etc...

So what does everybody think or does it matter at all? I know these discussions can get heated, which is fine, but try and keep it civilised so this thread doesn't get locked.

Thanks

It´s more likely possible that the British helped the Free State Army in this incident. When the Free State Army took over from the British in January 1921 it´d be interesting to know how many former Irish soldiers, serving in the British Army were integrated into the Irish Free State Army. I know that the British supplied the Irish with equipment and armour. Most of them was what the British left behind when leaving Ireland. It´s also more logically to me that the Irish had to get trained personnel to handle Artillery.

It doesn´t change my opinion about Michael Collins in any way, he remains to me one of the greatest Irishmen who ever lived. I wouldn´t blame the Free State Army in any way because they were new and they´d to fight for their own recognition as well.

I wouldn´t say that the British were pulling the strings in the Civil War on the side of the Irish Free State entirely, but I can imagine that there has been some bit more than just material help to get the existance of the Free State settled and secured. The major responsibility was on the Irish themselves to prove it that they were able to handle their own affairs as good and efficient as possible.

I´m not sure whether the knowing of the British aid had changed public opinion in favour of the Republican side, because if so the people might have known that in such a case the British had to come back with far more force than in the short years before.

In all an interesting article and I´m accustomed to the writings of Tim Pat Coogan aside from other Irish historians. The whole story puts the spot on how the Free State Army succeeded in the end and even if it was only to achieve it by the (silent) help of the British it had to be done.

Dr.Nightdub

Thomas_I wrote: »

When the Free State Army took over from the British in January 1921 it´d be interesting to know how many former Irish soldiers, serving in the British Army were integrated into the Irish Free State Army.

None. Initially, enlistment in the FS Army was limited to those who had prior service in the IRA, so they simply transferred rather than being attested (sworn in).

it wasn't until the Provisional government started a huge recruitment drive in the first week of July - after the surrender of the Four Courts - that this rule was lifted.

Thomas_I

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

None. Initially, enlistment in the FS Army was limited to those who had prior service in the IRA, so they simply transferred rather than being attested (sworn in).

it wasn't until the Provisional government started a huge recruitment drive in the first week of July - after the surrender of the Four Courts - that this rule was lifted.

Thank you for that and I conclude from your post, that most of prior IRA service men were not used to handle heavy artillery which makes it more logically that the Free State Army accepted the help the British, whether they liked it or not.

Dr.Nightdub

I agree. Tom Barry had served in the artillery during the World War, but he was hardly gonna lend a hand. In the short time between asking the British for the guns and the start of the attack on the Four Courts, finding enough experienced artillery veterans in the IRA / FS Army to crew the guns would've been like looking for needles in a haystack.

Peregrinus

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

None. Initially, enlistment in the FS Army was limited to those who had prior service in the IRA, so they simply transferred rather than being attested (sworn in).

it wasn't until the Provisional government started a huge recruitment drive in the first week of July - after the surrender of the Four Courts - that this rule was lifted.

And even then there was no “integration” of British army units, or transfer of individual soldiers from the British army to the Free State army. The Free State army contained many ex-British servicemen, but they were mostly people who had served in the Great War, been demobilized, joined the Volunteers, fought in the War of Independence and then transferred into the Free State army. New recruits from July 1922 who had never been Volunteers might also be ex-British servicemen, but again they would be people who had already left the British army, probably some time previously, and they enlisted individually like everyone else. There was no transfer across from the British Army to the Free State army.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Thank you for that and I conclude from your post, that most of prior IRA service men were not used to handle heavy artillery which makes it more logically that the Free State Army accepted the help the British, whether they liked it or not.

There were plenty of Volunteers who had served in the British army in the Great War, and presumably some of them had artillery training/experience. It’s undoubtedly the case that the British did supply artillery pieces to the Free State army which were operated by Free State army soldiers. Possibly they were men had already had artillery training when serving in the British forces themselves; possibly some quick-and-dirty training was provided when the guns were delivered. Possibly a bit of both.

It’s also possible, I suppose, that British artillery units were used for a short time while Free State units were assembled and given any necessary training. It’s also possible that British servicemen acted as trainers/advisers/supervisers/demonstrators when the new Free State artillery units were shelling the Four Courts. Certainly, Collins would have had every incentive to minimize any involvement of British troops in that engagement - and to suppress information about whatever involvement there was.

tac foley

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

None. Initially, enlistment in the FS Army was limited to those who had prior service in the IRA, so they simply transferred rather than being attested (sworn in).

I'm not sure that 'transferred' is the correct word here, as the IRA was not an established standing army of the nation.

However, I'd agree that many who joined the FSA were former members of that organisation. My father was one of them. Jailed for using excessive zeal in 'warming up' an RIC barracks in early 1921, he was freed by the new government on the signing of the truce and promptly joined the FSA.

tac

Thomas_I

Peregrinus wrote: »

... Certainly, Collins would have had every incentive to minimize any involvement of British troops in that engagement - and to suppress information about whatever involvement there was.

Certainly so, on the other hand he was pragmatic enough to accept the help of the British in case of need even on a minimal basis and keeping that as seecret as possible from the public. I know that the offer of help from Churchill was more likely to be rejected by Collins. But in these times of civil war, he was left with no much choice in order to avoid an involement of the British on a larger scale to restore law and order in Ireland if the Free State Army hadn´t been able to handle it by themselves.

Crooked Jack

You're all absolutely correct about the reasons for seeking British aid during the Civil War, I'm not disputing that at all. I just cant help but shake the feeling that immediately following a very bitter war with the British, if it had have been revealed at the time that the FSA was fighting side by side with the British Army to kill fellow Irish men, even if it was just for one engagement and two shots, that would have had a huge effect on public opinion and there could have been a very different outcome. Not necessarily that the rebels would have won, but it may not have been such a crushing defeat.
I'd also remind people that Irish men serving in the British Army before and after the War of Independence were two very different scenarios.

Peregrinus

tac foley wrote: »

I'm not sure that 'transferred' is the correct word here, as the IRA was not an established standing army of the nation.

The Free State army saw itself (and army of the Republic still sees itself) as the Irish Volunteers. established in 1913, and reorganised in 1917, and becoming the army of the newly-established state in 1922. "Transferred" is probably not, strictly speaking, the right word since the people concerned did not see themselves as leaving one organisation and joining another. Rather, the organisation was simply taking on a new role (albeit a role for which it had always intended itself, the army of an independent Irish state).

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Free State army saw itself (and army of the Republic still sees itself) as the Irish Volunteers. established in 1913, and reorganised in 1917, and becoming the army of the newly-established state in 1922. "Transferred" is probably not, strictly speaking, the right word since the people concerned did not see themselves as leaving one organisation and joining another. Rather, the organisation was simply taking on a new role (albeit a role for which it had always intended itself, the army of an independent Irish state).

Surely it had always intended to be the army of an independent, 32-county Irish Republic.

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Surely it had always intended to be the army of an independent, 32-county Irish Republic.

Yes, of course, but those who accepted the treaty saw the Free State as the an imperfect version of the Republic they wanted - and hopefully as something that could develop into the Republic they wanted.

(Those who took the other side, of course, had a different view.)

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're all absolutely correct about the reasons for seeking British aid during the Civil War, I'm not disputing that at all. I just cant help but shake the feeling that immediately following a very bitter war with the British, if it had have been revealed at the time that the FSA was fighting side by side with the British Army to kill fellow Irish men, even if it was just for one engagement and two shots, that would have had a huge effect on public opinion and there could have been a very different outcome. Not necessarily that the rebels would have won, but it may not have been such a crushing defeat.
I'd also remind people that Irish men serving in the British Army before and after the War of Independence were two very different scenarios.

Of all periods of warfare in the long history of Ireland, I regard the time of civil war as the most tragic - and in my opinion unnecessary and avoidable - bloodshed. I´m sure that if it had went the way you said, the British had waged a war on Ireland on that large scale as they threatened in the last hours of the negotiations upon the Anglo-Irish-Treaty in December 1921. This had probably crushed the Anti-Treaty-Volunteers as well as it had put an end to the very first Irish State since the act of Union in 1800. In the end of that scenario, the Irish probably had lost for what they were fighting for over centuries and then as it often happened, because of the cause of diversity among the Irish people themselves.

In the time of the Irish civil war, Britain was still the world power number one. The USA retreating into the period of isolation, Russia still engaged in their own civil war after the revolution of 1917. The British had been able to sent strong reinforcement to Ireland to either end the civil war or in an unpredictable time afterwards (depending on the outcome of their victory) being engaged into another war of independence with what was left of the Irish Volunteers.

In a book about Michael Collins, same title by Tim Pat Coogan, it is plain described where the roots were that led to the outbreak of the Irish civil war. It has to do with the change of political power and influence among the Irish Freedom movement (let´s call it that way by concret meaning the IRB), towards SF in which the moderate powers became the minority. Understandable because they didn´t achieve Home Rule for Ireland and SF emerged from these different political strains among the Irish Republican movement as the more effective and modern party. These moderate powers were too weak to keep a balance between them and the more radicals which wanted the Republic at any costs.

Eamon DeValera, who has been the figurehead of the Anti-Treaty-Republicans has often be blamed for the Irish civil war. This is just partly right, because he wasn´t the only leading person of them. There were also others and the most radical of these others who instantly springs to mind was Cathal Brugha. He was also one of those opposing many aspects in the drawings of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, sent from Collins and Griffith to Dublin while they were still in London, and always insisting on an Irish Republic. DeValera knew better from his own experiences when he went to London for negtiations a couple of months earlier after the truce was given by the British.

I wonder whether DeValera or any of his fellowmen got notice from the aid of the British in fighting them. If so, it is curious that they didn´t used such knowledge to bring more people on their side. In the end, it was better in case they didn´t know that.

The figures of the killed Irish people during the civil war are higher than in the whole period from 1916 to 1921 altogether. A very sad thing.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_I wrote: »

Of all periods of warfare in the long history of Ireland, I regard the time of civil war as the most tragic - and in my opinion unnecessary and avoidable - bloodshed. I´m sure that if it had went the way you said, the British had waged a war on Ireland on that large scale as they threatened in the last hours of the negotiations upon the Anglo-Irish-Treaty in December 1921. This had probably crushed the Anti-Treaty-Volunteers as well as it had put an end to the very first Irish State since the act of Union in 1800. In the end of that scenario, the Irish probably had lost for what they were fighting for over centuries and then as it often happened, because of the cause of diversity among the Irish people themselves.

In the time of the Irish civil war, Britain was still the world power number one. The USA retreating into the period of isolation, Russia still engaged in their own civil war after the revolution of 1917. The British had been able to sent strong reinforcement to Ireland to either end the civil war or in an unpredictable time afterwards (depending on the outcome of their victory) being engaged into another war of independence with what was left of the Irish Volunteers.

In a book about Michael Collins, same title by Tim Pat Coogan, it is plain described where the roots were that led to the outbreak of the Irish civil war. It has to do with the change of political power and influence among the Irish Freedom movement (let´s call it that way by concret meaning the IRB), towards SF in which the moderate powers became the minority. Understandable because they didn´t achieve Home Rule for Ireland and SF emerged from these different political strains among the Irish Republican movement as the more effective and modern party. These moderate powers were too weak to keep a balance between them and the more radicals which wanted the Republic at any costs.

Eamon DeValera, who has been the figurehead of the Anti-Treaty-Republicans has often be blamed for the Irish civil war. This is just partly right, because he wasn´t the only leading person of them. There were also others and the most radical of these others who instantly springs to mind was Cathal Brugha. He was also one of those opposing many aspects in the drawings of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, sent from Collins and Griffith to Dublin while they were still in London, and always insisting on an Irish Republic. DeValera knew better from his own experiences when he went to London for negtiations a couple of months earlier after the truce was given by the British.

I wonder whether DeValera or any of his fellowmen got notice from the aid of the British in fighting them. If so, it is curious that they didn´t used such knowledge to bring more people on their side. In the end, it was better in case they didn´t know that.

The figures of the killed Irish people during the civil war are higher than in the whole period from 1916 to 1921 altogether. A very sad thing.

I couldn't agree with you more. Along with An Gorta Mor the Civil War was one of the most tragic episodes in Irish history, not just for the physical death and destruction but the damage it did to the Iris psyche and the bitter divisions it left among Irish people that exist to this day.
In fact I would say (An Gorta Mor aside) the only greater tragedy to happen to Ireland was partition.
The scenario you outline of the British re-invading and crushing Ireland with all its military might is a horrendous one, sadly, if it kept the country together, I still think it would have been preferable to the Civil War and partition (of land and minds) that followed.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more. Along with An Gorta Mor the Civil War was one of the most tragic episodes in Irish history, not just for the physical death and destruction but the damage it did to the Iris psyche and the bitter divisions it left among Irish people that exist to this day.
In fact I would say (An Gorta Mor aside) the only greater tragedy to happen to Ireland was partition.
The scenario you outline of the British re-invading and crushing Ireland with all its military might is a horrendous one, sadly, if it kept the country together, I still think it would have been preferable to the Civil War and partition (of land and minds) that followed.

Thanks for that Jack.

The partition of Ireland was already decided by the British government when they installed the Stormont Parliament in NI in 1913. It´s just a couple of weeks ago that I came across an article on the BBC website about that Parliament which will celebrate its centenary next year. Further it has also to do with the plans of Home Rule for Ireland, which were sometimes altered. Just to say so much that there was the outset of two Parliaments. One for Belfast and one for Dublin. Above these both there should have been established something like a "joint-council" of both Parliaments in which matters concerning the whole of Ireland withing the British Empire had to be dealt with. It´d had been not quite the same as it happened during the negotiations of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 where the governments of the UK and RoI worked together with representatives from both sides of the troubles in NI. Well, not so similar like this but planned as a lasting one. It has never been established because of the start of the first World War when Home Rule was put aside, the Easter Rising 1916 and the Irish War of Independence from 1919 to 1921.

Although the British government during the time of the negotiations of the Anglo-Irish-Treaty would had been likely to release the whole of Ireland into an state of independence (also within the British Empire), David Lloyd George couldn´t convince the Unionists in NI to agree to Home Rule for Ireland. From this point of view, the British were left no way out as to keep them Unionsts and therefore Ulster (the whole of the Province was concerned) within the UK for the sake of the Unionists. On the other hand there was no possibility to keep an as a Republic established independent country, which in the latter term were only granted dominion status, within the "British Empire known as the Commonwealth of Nations" (that was the official title after WWI).

The first time when an Irish delegation went to London after the truce in 1921, led by De Valera, Lloyd George tried to make this clear to them and like it or not, it´s only because of the good will of the then British government that the truce lasted that long to get time for further rounds of negotiations. Which were, as we know, led by Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins. The difference between these two occations is, that Griffith and Collins understood the situation and for the sake of peace and at least the opportunity to get Irish Freedom (even when it wasn´t that what the wanted in the first place), they were both pargmatic enough to agree to an Irish Free State and sign the treaty in the end.

The reasons for the civil war lies a bit further back when the Irish Parliamentary Party took all efforts to get Home Rule for Ireland and failed. Home Rule was opposed by the Unionists in Ulster from the very start. It were the Unionists who first armed and militarised themselves to defend the Union. The IRB followed that initiative a while later to fight for Irelands independence. So civil war might had occured in Ulster, similar to what happened some decades later in NI, but probably the other three provinces would had been spared that bloodshed, because so far I know, it was at worst there during the Irish civil war, aside from some IRA campaines after the Anglo-Irish-Treaty and the partition were settled.

From my point of view, the English themselves weren´t that loyal to the "Ulstermen" as vice versa. I think that wouldn´t it had been for the sake of the whole British Empire, with a side look on the Independence movement in India at the same time, the English might had a no scrouples to get rid of the "Irish problem".

I know that I´m going a bit beyond the topic of this thread, but I think it is an important aspect to have a look on the decline of the British Empire which started after WWI slowly and accelerated after WWII. It´s the financial aspect of the UK. During WWI, the UK weren´t so directly threatened as it has been in WWII. The bombings were minor to what came later with the "Blitz" and there was no need for the British to get more material for their warfare from the USA (like the "lend-and-lease-treaty" in WWII). So although they had their expenses from fighting WWI, mainly on French and Belgian soil, the British were financially better off. But to hold and keep an Empire of the scale as it was then, has not only benefits, it also has costs to provide the administration and the military to rule and keep them. The economical crisis that followed after WWI probably made the following British governments more inclined to grant either dominion status or even independence. As Ireland has always been seen by the British as their own territory of the UK, the example with India is to that different, but the principles of how the British worked out an development with finally granting independence are quite similar. First they grant dominion status and then wait and see how that former colony is doing in ruling their own affairs. The less they had to care for them and the more they had to pay for sustaining that country within the Empire, the more they were likely to release them into Independence. The only thing of interest of the British was and still is, to keep good relations to their former colonies for economical and financial reasons. This is how the Commonwealth of Nations is working, the replacement of the former British Empire.

Ireland had, and later one has been given the same procedure after the Anglo-Irish-Treaty was ratified. First the Irish Free State with an likewise dominion status as Canada, for example, then in 1937 (the opportunity of the Abdication crisis of King Edward VIII smartly taken by De Valera to get rid of the oath of alegiance in 1936) the first constitution of Ireland and finally in 1949 the Republic of Ireland and the leaving of the Commonwealth. From the start of the Irish Free State to the leaving of the Commonwealth as an Republic of Ireland, international recognised, the British had had several opportunities to intervene. The by De Valera in the 1930s started "economical war" with England was as unnecessary as his stubbornness to insist on an Republic when there was no chance to get it. It has done Ireland economically more harm than the English. It was also a luck for the Irish that all British governments after Lloyd George were led by PMs with more peacefull interests on their agenda and less hardliners that the Irish got no hard respond from Britain as in the centuries before. It has also to do with the problems the UK had in other parts of the Empire which distracted them from Ireland. Just to mention India and the dawn of WWII after the Nazis took over in Germany in 1933.

Some may see all that as weekness by the British or according to the phrase "Englands difficulties are Irelands opportunities". I personally see it more as good will in the first place and also for the second half of the 1930s as result of the appeasement policy in the UK.

The huge costs of the "lend-and-lease-agreement" with the USA, brought the British on the verge of financial bankcruptcy. Britain was, like other colonial powers like France, in the couple of decades after WWII no longer able to afford the costs of such an large Empire. The hardliners to keep the Empire together (like Winston Churchill), were not in key-positions when these decisions were made. With Churchill still PM in 1947, India might not had been released into independence. With him PM in 1948 / 1949, I don´t know whether Ireland had got the opportunity to leave the Commonwealth so simple as it went. Just with a short note of despatch exchanges between King George VI and De Valera and that´s it.

From all that I´ve read about Irish and British history, the conclusion concerning the unity of Ireland is, that it foremost had been the hardliners on the Unionist side that holded on to remain part of the UK. Therefore I don´t blame the British for that, because the chances were there but the way to an united Ireland kept shut by the Unionists. Many things went wrong on both sides, but it´s easy to say that with hindsight. It´s still a sad thing when people aren´t willing to learn from their own history. At least there is some imporvement in NI since the Good Friday Agreement and I hope that it will continue to give the people there a peaceful future and leave the troubles behind. Whether this will end in a united Ireland some times or not, is second to the efforts to keep the peace there.

Dr.Nightdub

Interesting photo here, of one of the artillery pieces being moved into position to shell the Hammam Hotel (I'm guessing that's the base of Nelson's Pillar in the background)



Two points about this: first, the caps worn by the officer on the right and the kneeling soldier seem to be closer to the British model, with the wire-stiffened brim, rather than the more floppy version worn by the FS Army e.g. the soldier on the right. Second, why are those two soldiers wearing greatcoats? The photo was taken in the first week of July...

gobnaitolunacy

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Interesting photo here, of one of the artillery pieces being moved into position to shell the Hammam Hotel (I'm guessing that's the base of Nelson's Pillar in the background)



Two points about this: first, the caps worn by the officer on the right and the kneeling soldier seem to be closer to the British model, with the wire-stiffened brim, rather than the more floppy version worn by the FS Army e.g. the soldier on the right. Second, why are those two soldiers wearing greatcoats? The photo was taken in the first week of July...

A number of officers got uniforms made up for them by tailors so there would have been a degree of non standard things floating about, bright patent peaks instead of being covered in cloth, etc., some may not have liked the shapeless things they were issued with. Pic isn't good enough to pick up what insignia is on the cap of the kneeling guy.
About the greatcoats, pic may be taken first thing in the morning?

purplepanda

That cannon looks more like a remnant from the Crimean War than a then modern WW1 artillery piece

tac foley

purplepanda wrote: »

That cannon looks more like a remnant from the Crimean War than a then modern WW1 artillery piece

Be that as it may, the 18pdr QF field gun was a VERY successful and handy light piece, and served with the British and colonial forces from 1904 to 1942.

This -

Irish Service
The 18-pdr was introduced to the Irish National Army in 1922 on the foundation of the state. It was first used by National Army Gunners to bombard the Four Courts in Dublin from 28 June 1922, as part of the Battle of Dublin. The departing British Forces were criticised for the lack of training they had imparted to the gunners of the infant Irish artillery corps, and for providing shells intended to destroy barbed wire rather than the normal HE shells. The marks of the shell fire can still be seen on the walls of the Four Courts. The 18-pdr played an important role throughout the Irsih Civil War, being instrumental in the fighting in Munster alongside the Rolls-Royce armoured cars. The nine 18-pdr guns were used in the infantry support role until group together to form an artillery corps in March 1923.

With the establishment of the Defence Forces in 1924, the 18-pdr was the only artillery weapon in Irish service, forming the 1st and 2nd Field Batteries of the Artillery Corps. By the following year twenty-five 18-pdr guns were on hand and three more were delivered in 1933. Additional equipment received by the army in 1941 included four 8-pdr guns. The regular armys field batteries re-equip with the 25-pounder in 1949 but thirty-seven 18-pdr guns were still in use with the reserve FCA. The guns remained in FCA service until the late 1970s when they were replaced by the 25-pdr and 120 mm mortars.

Some examples remain preserved, including several in Collins Barracks, Cork, in McKee Barracks, Dublin and two in Aiken Barracks, Dundalk.

tac

bluecode

Some interesting comments from Thomas. Which I generally agree with. In relation to whether or not British gunners fired a few shots. I do think you have to be careful not read too much into those situations like that. Clearly training was needed and as tac foleys quote shows not enough was provided. It is entirely plausible that a couple of gunners arrived with the guns, gave a demonstration banged off a couple or rounds and headed back to their barracks. There was cooperation with the British and training was provided, there had to be and it was in the British interest that the Free State army won this war. I doubt if much training was needed for shelling the Four Courts though. From the newsreels it wasn't exactly indirect fire. Open the breech sight down the barrel, load and fire.

The idea that if this was more widely known that it would have changed public support for the treaty is really speculation and it assumes that anti British feeling was stronger than it was. I'd have said there was a great deal more ambiguity among Irish people about the British than many people now would think. Let's face it when the British army were marching to the boat to go to Britain they were often cheered by the crowd and in a good way. In Galway for example when the Connaught Rangers were leaving. There was a ceremony to see them off in Eyre Square. Remember often these were local men.

Arguably you could say in this case the British were now fighting for Ireland against the forces (traitors?) who were ignoring the democratic mandate of the treaty vote.

It's all a question of perception.

In relation to the photo of gunners. The fact that it's July means nothing. Irish weather hasn't changed that much. It can be cold and those coats don't look so much greatcoats as macs. Maybe they were expecting rain? It's also notable that both are officers.

Hats styles don't tell much either. Hats were privately made and remember all the military tailors would have been making British uniforms only a short time previously. Just change the colour of the cloth.

pedroeibar1

bluecode wrote: »

I doubt if much training was needed for shelling the Four Courts though. From the newsreels it wasn't exactly indirect fire. Open the breech sight down the barrel, load and fire.

Much training is needed and that is why the British were used to fire a couple of Howitzer shells. Tac's post says

The departing British Forces were criticised for the lack of training they had imparted to the gunners of the infant Irish artillery corps, and for providing shells intended to destroy barbed wire rather than the normal HE shells. The marks of the shell fire can still be seen on the walls of the Four Courts.

Those shells are shrapnel-type whereas the howitzer shells were high explosive (HE) designed to maximise blast effect, sending shock waves that kill and weaken building structures.

The real crime was not the shelling or use of Brit Army soldiers - it was the wanton destruction of records by a mine expressly planted for that purpose.

bluecode wrote: »

........... It can be cold and those coats don't look so much greatcoats as macs.......... .

The coats are macs IMO, army greatcoats even for officers in post WW2 were considerably stiffer and did not hang like that when worn.

The guy in the flat cap looks like a Corpo worker with a key for turning off water/gas- he does not look military.

Crooked Jack

bluecode wrote: »

Arguably you could say in this case the British were now fighting for Ireland against the forces (traitors?) who were ignoring the democratic mandate of the treaty vote.

No you couldn't. A referendum held at the barrel of a gun does not a democratic mandate provide.

Victor

Thomas_I wrote: »

The partition of Ireland was already decided by the British government when they installed the Stormont Parliament in NI in 1913.

You might have your dates wrong.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The guy in the flat cap looks like a Corpo worker with a key for turning off water/gas- he does not look military.

That's a pick-axe. Presumably, they wanted some way of 'digging-in' the gun, to reduce recoil.

Thomas_I

bluecode wrote: »

Some interesting comments from Thomas. Which I generally agree with. ...

The idea that if this was more widely known that it would have changed public support for the treaty is really speculation and it assumes that anti British feeling was stronger than it was. I'd have said there was a great deal more ambiguity among Irish people about the British than many people now would think. Let's face it when the British army were marching to the boat to go to Britain they were often cheered by the crowd and in a good way. In Galway for example when the Connaught Rangers were leaving. There was a ceremony to see them off in Eyre Square. Remember often these were local men.

Arguably you could say in this case the British were now fighting for Ireland against the forces (traitors?) who were ignoring the democratic mandate of the treaty vote.

It's all a question of perception...

Thanks for that and I wouldn´t resist to accept your line re the British fighting for Ireland (more like for the Irish Free State). It is indeed a question of perception and therefore I can follow it, bearing in mind that it was also in the interest of the British government to help the Irish Free State to win the civil war.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No you couldn't. A referendum held at the barrel of a gun does not a democratic mandate provide.

The "barrel of a gun" was held at the Irish plenipotentiaries in London to sign the Anglo-Irish-Treaty. The referendum was initiated by the Dail itself to give the treaty the democratic legitimation. There was no demand from the British side to held up an referndum in Ireland upon the treaty, to them it was enough that the treaty was ratified, and with that it was done.

In my opinion, the Irish Free State got this democratic mandate provided by the result of the referendum in favour of the treaty.

Thomas_I

Victor wrote: »

You might have your dates wrong.

Well, I consider 1913 as the year in which the British government granted the Ulster Unionists their own parliament and own government. That was in my opinion the first step towards a "de facto" partition and the "Ulster Regime". Nevertheless I´d appreciate it to get the right dates from you.:)

Victor

Thomas_I wrote: »

Well, I consider 1913 as the year in which the British government granted the Ulster Unionists their own parliament and own government. That was in my opinion the first step towards a "de facto" partition and the "Ulster Regime". Nevertheless I´d appreciate it to get the right dates from you.:)

The Parliament of Northern Ireland ... sat from 7 June 1921[1] to 30 March 1972

They may have decided to have separate parliaments in 1913, but it wasn't installed (as you said) until much later.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_I wrote: »

The "barrel of a gun" was held at the Irish plenipotentiaries in London to sign the Anglo-Irish-Treaty. The referendum was initiated by the Dail itself to give the treaty the democratic legitimation. There was no demand from the British side to held up an referndum in Ireland upon the treaty, to them it was enough that the treaty was ratified, and with that it was done.

In my opinion, the Irish Free State got this democratic mandate provided by the result of the referendum in favour of the treaty.

I probably shouldnt have used the word referendum because from what I recall there wasnt actually one. Elections, certainly but was the question of the treaty ever actually put to the people?