Irish rank and file soldiers' response to 1857 mutiny

rpatel

Hi all,

This is my first post to the Irish people on these forums. By the way of an introduction - I am an Indian living in India. I have always been quite interested in the history of my country and race, and obviously, British occupation of Indian sub-continent is a defining period for us in a myriad of ways. So, here I am, trying to get insights from the Irish themselves, as your ancestors had a big role to play in the operations (if not strategy) of the imperial empire.

The current focus of my non-academic research is the period between 1837 to 1877, basically the First War of Indian Independence - as we refer to it now in the Indian republic - plus/minus 20 years. Many things I read in my research make a lot of sense given what I know of those times. The weak princes and kings of India, the opportunistic HEIC officials, the sense of racial supremacy that the HEIC ruling class (white protestant men of English, Scottish, Welsh, Ulster, etc. stock) had going for them, etc.

However, one thing that I wish to understand more is the role that Irish soldiers played in enabling the British militarily rule in India of my period of interest. As I learn more about the Irish history, it is evident that Ireland was also colonized, and impoverished by the same people who interestingly, too, had religion inspired sectarian / racist notions of the Irish bourgeois. Given this, what made the colonized men from Irish Catholic peasant families participate in the bloody suppression of 1857 mutiny by Indian soldiers? There are many tales of the blood bath in which Ulster Irish, chiefly of CoE/Presbytarian denominations, participated in the years following the 1857 mutiny. Their motivation is somewhat clear when one studies the fact that they largely came from middle-class landed families, and that most of them were commissioned officers in HEIC armies. That is to say, they were the ruling classes; the empire benefited them. But what of the HEIC army's rank and file which had a significant percentage of men (something like 30%) from the Irish peasant class? Did they have moral compunction that made them feel horrible / at unease with the violence afflicted on the natives of India by the British empire circa 1857? If so, can you please share any anecdotes of this?

I know that the two nations of Ireland and India were close at the onset of 20th century. India was closely following Ireland as it went through its republican/independence struggle. But what I am very interested in is finding out how peasant Irish soldiers felt about their colonizer subjecting another race to the same fate as theirs? Was their emotional response the one of indifference (why do I care)? Myopia (not my problem)? Racism (brown skinned Indians deserve what they're getting)? Religious bigotry (heathens deserve hell)? Their lack of control on their own destiny (given that many sons from peasant families were trying to escape the terrible poverty back home) making them unable to help out another? In a grey world, of course, all of the above reasons must be true when compounded for all the people. However, can we delineate which way the majority sentiment resonated?

Forgive me if I come across as opening a can of worms as that is not my intent. Just that I really need to understand the Irish HEIC soldier of mid 19th century to enable me to move forward in my current literary project.

Many thanks.

Wile E. Coyote

rpatel wrote: »

But what I am very interested in is finding out how peasant Irish soldiers felt about their colonizer subjecting another race to the same fate as theirs? Was their emotional response the one of indifference (why do I care)? Myopia (not my problem)? Racism (brown skinned Indians deserve what they're getting)? Religious bigotry (heathens deserve hell)? Their lack of control on their own destiny (given that many sons from peasant families were trying to escape the terrible poverty back home) making them unable to help out another?

With little/no academic knowledge on the period in question I'm sure there was an element of sympathy from any Irish soldiers who took part. I doubt very much that any Irish peasants joined the army out of loyalty to Britain or the monarchs at the time and would have done so out of necessity to feed their own families. Ireland at the time was only emerging from a famine which claimed upwards of 1 million lives and resulted in the emigration of upto 1.5 million (depending on what source you read), so people would have jumped at any form of employment and income regardless of if they disagreed with what it entailed.

rpatel

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

With little/no academic knowledge on the period in question I'm sure there was an element of sympathy from any Irish soldiers who took part. I doubt very much that any Irish peasants joined the army out of loyalty to Britain or the monarchs at the time and would have done so out of necessity to feed their own families. Ireland at the time was only emerging from a famine which claimed upwards of 1 million lives and resulted in the emigration of upto 1.5 million (depending on what source you read), so people would have jumped at any form of employment and income regardless of if they disagreed with what it entailed.

Thanks! That is what I think would have been the case. The interesting thing, though, is that there is not much to go around in terms of history of Irish other ranks in HEIC during that period. There is a lot available on the lives and times of commissioned officers such as Hugh Gough, the Lawrence brothers (Henry and James), Frederick Roberts, etc. who are all Anglo-Irish. Not sure of the Brigadier-General John Nicholson, though. I highly doubt that he was a peasant as he came through a recommendation from someone higher up in the company (from this it seems like his family was privileged). Would be nice to get more info on Nicholson's (Lisburn) family.

Any stories that you could share about Irish NCOs during the famine years, especially those leaving for the East Indian shores, would be great. I am particularly seeking the following info -

1) What was the financial deal for an NCO in the mid 19th century (say, a private) in HEIC? I know HEIC army paid better than the Royal Army even after the penal laws were withdrawn. Don't have exact numbers, though.

2) Where exactly did HEIC recruitment happen in this period? I mean which counties? I believe that during HEIC years, regiments were assigned upon arrival to the Indian shores (unlike how things were in the latter years of 19th century). I haven't been able to come across an account of HEIC hiring an Irish NCO yet.

Balmed Out

No knowlegdge of the events but I think your looking at the events through modern educated eyes.

At a complete guess I would imagine a bunch of uneducated (Irish/ human!) soldiers of the period would be happy to get any paying job and might be happier still to find they are no longer seen as the bottom of the ladder and would perhaps be eager to lord it over the new bottom rung.

Most people in that situation would be looking out for themselves first, grandiose notions of equality and liberty don't feed you or perhaps really occur to you when you've never known anything like it. Plenty of Indians were happy to go into the pay of the British army and fight in Afghanistan, Africa, the world wars etc and I imagine it was the same for them.

rpatel

Balmed Out wrote: »

No knowlegdge of the events but I think your looking at the events through modern educated eyes.

At a complete guess I would imagine a bunch of uneducated (Irish/ human!) soldiers of the period would be happy to get any paying job and might be happier still to find they are no longer seen as the bottom of the ladder and would perhaps be eager to lord it over the new bottom rung.

Most people in that situation would be looking out for themselves first, grandiose notions of equality and liberty don't feed you or perhaps really occur to you when you've never known anything like it. Plenty of Indians were happy to go into the pay of the British army and fight in Afghanistan, Africa, the world wars etc and I imagine it was the same for them.

True. Besides, I don't think that modern eyes are going to be any different than 19th century eyes in this regard. Liberty and justice works better when bellies are full.

But my exercise is focused on finding out about any reaction (good, bad, ugly) as there is a dearth of documented Irish response to the events in that period (at least as far as I can tell).

Missent

Hi all

Very interested in this topic and very pleased that it has been raised. The only major study on this subject that I know of is Barry Crosbie, Irish Imperial Networks: Migration, Social Communication and Exchange in Nineteenth-Century India, published by Cambridge University Press in 2012. Dr. Crosbie is a native of Wexford and currently lectures in the University of Macau.

His conclusions in regard to the Irish NCO soldiers are, firstly, that they were aware of the economic benefits arising from military service in India compared to the ravages of post-Famine Ireland. That would be understandable. His second conclusion is more controversial, namely, that the Irish recruits identified more with British colonialism rather than Indian independence.

Other factors which must be taken into account, I believe, are that there would have been a corresponding effort at religious conversion by Catholic clergy at the same time in India. A Crown victory in the Mutiny/Uprising would have been regarded as supportive of that movement. Finally, it's likely that many of the Irish NCOs were unlikely to be able to write based on the virtual absence of letters to Ireland from Irish NCOs serving in India during that period. Thus, any reservations that they may have had in taking part in suppressing the Mutiny/Uprising are unlikely to have been recorded.

As far as I can remember, Catholic recruitment to the HEIC started around 1780. Apparently, its possible effects on the HEIC was discussed in some detail in both the British Parliament and the national newspapers of the time. Thus far, I've haven't traced any of this.

My interest in this topic started as two local "gentry" families had sons killed in the Mutiny/Uprising, one during the re-taking of Delhi and the other at Cawnpore/Kanpur.

JohnFalstaff

One of the executed leaders of the 1916 Rising, Michael Mallin, served with the British Army in India. Although his period of service there took place a few decades after the timeframe you are focusing on, his experiences there might be of some interest to you.

Mallin was a rank and file soldier in the Royal Scots Fusiliers and was sent to India in 1896. His regiment was tasked with suppressing what was called the 'Tirah Revolt' - a general uprising of native tribes in the region close to the Khyber Pass.

Mallin wrote frequent letters home to his fiancée in Ireland and in these letters you get a clear sense of Mallin's growing distaste for the British Army and his sympathy for the local nationalists in India:

The war is lasting a very long time dear. We ought to leave the poor people alone for I am sure they will never give in and they have proved brave men God help them. If I were not a soldier I would be out fighting for them... I wish it was for Erin I was fighting and not against these poor people.

Mallin also remarks on how he often fought alongside native Indian soldiers serving in the British Army, something which had parallels in Ireland during the 1916 rebellion.

There are a number of other stories from Mallin's time in India that show how his time there radicalised his politics. The social injustice and inequality he witnessed there first hand convinced him that Ireland must rid itself of British rule.

Mallin was one of countless Irish soldiers that served in the British Army in India and I am sure that there were others who served there during the Mutiny that felt the same way.

If you are looking for more information on Michael Mallin I would recommend Brian Hughes' biography written as part of the 16 Lives series.

pedroeibar1

I would not find Crosbie’s assertion (as quoted by Missent above) particularly controversial. Additionally, most Irish people today do not know the difference between the Indian Army and the Army in India, so comment often is not often accurate.

In 1916 most of the Irish population did not give a damn about the GPO/Rising when it happened, same the Fenian Rising before that and the Rebellion of 1798 before that, so why expect that the HEIC recruits take an ‘anti-colonial view’ and sympathise with the natives? Those troops were in a hostile environment with their 'mates' and primarily for that reason would identify with their army comrades. Secondly for religious (Christian), education, colour, social background and aspirational reasons they would have identified with the HEIC, not the natives.

At a more gentrified level there was a strong tradition that younger sons joined the HEIC – the cost was considerably less than joining a ‘good’ regiment in the British Army (at a time when commissions were bought) and the potential rewards were considerably higher. That 'Irishness' brought loyalty from serving NCOs and troops. Similarly at a governmental / administrator level, there was a disproportionately large number of Irish in the Indian Civil Service – and many of them did very good work - eg the Stokes brothers, including Whitely Stokes the Celtic scholar. TCD was a training school for the ICS and the Church (Established). All these ties were reinforced by being Irish first and the R.Catholic / Protestant divide was left far behind.

William Burrell, an early shareholder in the HEIC, later leased lands around Kinsale / Bandon on Ireland’s south coast for shipbuilding and timber ‘harvesting’ and a few Company ships were built there in the early 1600s.

'Plain Tales from the Raj' by Charles Allen gives very good insight on the Punjab as does his 'A Soldier of the Company'. There is quite a good history of Nicholson in the former.

Coles

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

In 1916 most of the Irish population did not give a damn about the GPO/Rising when it happened, same the Fenian Rising before that and the Rebellion of 1798 before that...

When planning a rebellion it is usual not to tell everyone about it. This is actually good practice because otherwise the enemy has a chance to scupper the plans, execute the leaders and no rebellion happens. After the rebellion starts there is usually a period of confusion as information is restricted, or campaigns of disinformation kick in, and it can take time for the public to see that the rebellion might be successful. Most of the public are cowards too, and for good reason, but when they stand up there is no stopping them.

Rebellions are really just about creating a spark to inspire the slumbering Public. The leaders are always martyrs.

galwaycyclist

It is not edifying but it may be useful to remember the hostility some Irish immigrants displayed toward African-Americans during the same period.

To Hate And Despise The Negro’: Towards an Understanding of 1860s Irish Attitudes to African-Americans

http://irishamericancivilwar.com/2013/01/04/to-hate-and-despise-the-negro-towards-an-understanding-of-1860s-irish-attitudes-to-african-americans-and-emancipation/

In a dog-eat-dog world the average Irish soldier in India may not have had high regard for the locals. It is hard to say, I am sure some did and some didn't.

One of my great grandfathers served on the North-western frontier /Afghanistan in the late 1800s. When he came back he was actively involved with the IRA through the war of Independence, as I understand it, with a particular interest in counter intelligence. Whether he was radicalised by his experiences in India or what his attitude to the locals might have been I cannot say.

Balmed Out

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is not edifying but it may be useful to remember the hostility some Irish immigrants displayed toward African-Americans during the same period.

To Hate And Despise The Negro’: Towards an Understanding of 1860s Irish Attitudes to African-Americans

http://irishamericancivilwar.com/2013/01/04/to-hate-and-despise-the-negro-towards-an-understanding-of-1860s-irish-attitudes-to-african-americans-and-emancipation/

In a dog-eat-dog world the average Irish soldier in India may not have had high regard for the locals. It is hard to say, I am sure some did and some didn't.

One of my great grandfathers served on the North-western frontier /Afghanistan in the late 1800s. When he came back he was actively involved with the IRA through the war of Independence, as I understand it, with a particular interest in counter intelligence. Whether he was radicalised by his experiences in India or what his attitude to the locals might have been I cannot say.

Would that not have been born out of a competition for the same work though which wouldnt have been the case in India

johnny_doyle

my Gt Gt Grandfather served in the 2nd Bombay Regt of European Infantry (HEIC). Enlisted in Dublin 1854; returned to Dublin when the HEIC army was taken over by the British Army, cutting short his 10year period of enlistment. No paperwork other than his discharge document.

He married in Dublin then headed over to Canada, joined the US Navy and served 2 years during the US Civil War before returning to Dublin once more.

The Indian Mutiny period isn't one I've read a lot about so interested to see this thread and reading suggestions. I do have a passing knowledge of this things like the Singapore mutiny, the Jhansi incident, the Annie Larsen gun running scheme (ie WW1 era) and have an interest in the Connaught Rangers mutiny. During WW1 there appeared to be a concern that Indian "Mahommedan" troops might throw in their lot with Turkey.

There is a very small HEIC display of equipment/uniform in Collins Barracks museum.

rpatel

Missent wrote: »

Hi all

Very interested in this topic and very pleased that it has been raised. The only major study on this subject that I know of is Barry Crosbie, Irish Imperial Networks: Migration, Social Communication and Exchange in Nineteenth-Century India, published by Cambridge University Press in 2012. Dr. Crosbie is a native of Wexford and currently lectures in the University of Macau.

His conclusions in regard to the Irish NCO soldiers are, firstly, that they were aware of the economic benefits arising from military service in India compared to the ravages of post-Famine Ireland. That would be understandable. His second conclusion is more controversial, namely, that the Irish recruits identified more with British colonialism rather than Indian independence.

Other factors which must be taken into account, I believe, are that there would have been a corresponding effort at religious conversion by Catholic clergy at the same time in India. A Crown victory in the Mutiny/Uprising would have been regarded as supportive of that movement. Finally, it's likely that many of the Irish NCOs were unlikely to be able to write based on the virtual absence of letters to Ireland from Irish NCOs serving in India during that period. Thus, any reservations that they may have had in taking part in suppressing the Mutiny/Uprising are unlikely to have been recorded.

You make a good point about the illiteracy of an average NCO, as that explains lack of recorded correspondence (from letters, etc.) circa 1857.

Missent wrote: »

As far as I can remember, Catholic recruitment to the HEIC started around 1780. Apparently, its possible effects on the HEIC was discussed in some detail in both the British Parliament and the national newspapers of the time. Thus far, I've haven't traced any of this.

I recall reading something on the similar lines about British concern over a one too many Irish in Indian Civil Services. And, so I got searching, and this is what I came upon in "Irish Orientalism: A Literary and Intellectual History" by Joseph Lennon (page 172), which I reproduce (please let me know if it is not okay to reproduce text from the books on these forums) -

* * * * *

A reprint of an 1848 speech in the Irish Quarterly Review, "Government Patronage at Home and Abroad," by William Keogh, a leader of the Independent Irish Party in the British Parliament, mainly discusses the famine but begins by criticizing British discrimination against Irish officers in the Indian Civil Service. As we will later see, this moment was significant in the development of Irish Orientalism. Attacking the "ruthless spirit of British domination," Keogh argues that Ireland is a neglected but reliable part of the British Empire:

The inherent claims of this country - as an integral part of the empire - to a due participation in the honors and emoluments of the public service, have over and over again, for a long series of years, been recognized and acknowledged - verbally, of course, we mean - by every successive leader of the great contending English parties....We have for ages, owing to our credulous confidence in plausible professions, been the poor and pitiful sport of every English faction in turn, which has used us to and for its own selfish purposes when, and where, and as it happened to require our aid, and then gratefully treated us in return with the grossest injustice, or the most gallant contempt. That ruthless spirit of British domination, which for centuries of our early and mournful history marked its devastating progress through our island, in wholesale and undiscriminating confiscation, is still busily, though insidiously, at work in the piecemeal spoliation of our few remaining institutions, and in the stern and studied exclusion of Irishmen from the service of the Sovereign. (1851, 490)

With an urgent tone Keogh attacks England's gross neglect and inhumane mismanagement of Ireland in the 1840s, but his main supporting point is that Ireland needs more responsibility within the British Empire and more recognition of its present activities within it. Ireland, he asserts, has not received the benefits it deserves "as an integral part of the empire."

Keogh discusses discrimination against the Irish in tandem with the Famine in Ireland in 1848, yet he draws no connection between this "spoliation" of Ireland and other ruinous operations in other colonies. His arguments are clearly imperial. The benefits that Keogh lobbies for in this first section include more powerful governing positions for Irishmen, not for any fundamental change in the dynamics of the Empire - an argument that had real cultural force at the time. Keogh complains that the "ban of the Milesian brogue is upon" the "Hibernian Celt" when an Irishman wishes "official promotion". Indeed, only 13 out of 217 appointments in law or to the bench in India between years 1832 and 1848 were given to Irishmen. This small percentage of ranking appointments particularly galled because of the high percentage of Irish soldiers enlisted.

* * * * *

This book is a goldmine as it explores the theme that my question is based on. But in so far, it seems that there are two Irish opinions with respect to Indian mutiny - one which empathized with the British imperialism perhaps because of the social, economic, and theological benefits to them that the British imperialism entailed, and another which empathized with the colonized mainly due to the recent events that had taken place in their homeland.

rpatel

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

One of the executed leaders of the 1916 Rising, Michael Mallin, served with the British Army in India. Although his period of service there took place a few decades after the timeframe you are focusing on, his experiences there might be of some interest to you.

Mallin was a rank and file soldier in the Royal Scots Fusiliers and was sent to India in 1896. His regiment was tasked with suppressing what was called the 'Tirah Revolt' - a general uprising of native tribes in the region close to the Khyber Pass.

Mallin wrote frequent letters home to his fiancée in Ireland and in these letters you get a clear sense of Mallin's growing distaste for the British Army and his sympathy for the local nationalists in India:

The war is lasting a very long time dear. We ought to leave the poor people alone for I am sure they will never give in and they have proved brave men God help them. If I were not a soldier I would be out fighting for them... I wish it was for Erin I was fighting and not against these poor people.

Mallin also remarks on how he often fought alongside native Indian soldiers serving in the British Army, something which had parallels in Ireland during the 1916 rebellion.

There are a number of other stories from Mallin's time in India that show how his time there radicalised his politics. The social injustice and inequality he witnessed there first hand convinced him that Ireland must rid itself of British rule.

Mallin was one of countless Irish soldiers that served in the British Army in India and I am sure that there were others who served there during the Mutiny that felt the same way.

If you are looking for more information on Michael Mallin I would recommend Brian Hughes' biography written as part of the 16 Lives series.

Thanks for pointing me to Mr. Mallin. I did not know of him until I read your post. He was a patriot from what I have read so far, and his service in India did shape his nationalism for an Irish free state. I have only been able to read free preview of Brian Hughes' book available here (*). Thankfully, it covers his life in India, and hence, is very pertinent to my research.

(*) - http://issuu.com/obrienpress/docs/michael_mallin/1?e=1346572/2561198

Victor

rpatel wrote: »

2) Where exactly did HEIC recruitment happen in this period? I mean which counties? I believe that during HEIC years, regiments were assigned upon arrival to the Indian shores (unlike how things were in the latter years of 19th century).

I imagine recruitment happened just about everywhere. The British Army itself had about 100 barracks dispersed around Ireland from company to brigade size.

By 1857, the main railways had been built, so it would have been possible to recruit easily from almost anywhere.

Bluegrass1

In the 19th century a very high proportion of the British Army were Irishmen, up to 50 %. The British could maintain troops more cheaply in Ireland than in Britain. There was very little industry in Ireland and the great recruiting Sergeant Starvation helped to incentivise you men to enlist.

rpatel

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

At a more gentrified level there was a strong tradition that younger sons joined the HEIC – the cost was considerably less than joining a ‘good’ regiment in the British Army (at a time when commissions were bought) and the potential rewards were considerably higher. That 'Irishness' brought loyalty from serving NCOs and troops.

Not sure I understand what you refer to exactly by 'Irishness' in the above statement. It is of particular interest to me as you seem to imply that there is an inherent racial attribute that makes Irish soldiers - mercenaries, if I may, given that most of the times they weren't fighting for the homeland - loyal to their recruiting armies. Please elucidate further, if and when time permits.

rpatel

johnny_doyle wrote: »

my Gt Gt Grandfather served in the 2nd Bombay Regt of European Infantry (HEIC). Enlisted in Dublin 1854; returned to Dublin when the HEIC army was taken over by the British Army, cutting short his 10year period of enlistment. No paperwork other than his discharge document.

Thanks for sharing your ancestral history as I can segue into asking something I have wondered for some time now - it is a known fact that a significant number of HEIC European personnel did not join the British Army when HEIC was asked to close military operations as part of transitioning to the Crown. Would you happen to know or guess why your Great Great Grandfather cut short his enlistment? Was it the money (given that British Army was known to pay less than HEIC), or was it something else? Very curious.

rpatel

Victor wrote: »

I imagine recruitment happened just about everywhere. The British Army itself had about 100 barracks dispersed around Ireland from company to brigade size.

By 1857, the main railways had been built, so it would have been possible to recruit easily from almost anywhere.

Thanks! I am really eager to get my hands on the details of recruitment. For instance, what criteria was being used for recruitment apart from the obvious criterion of physical fitness? Did the recruiting officers speak Gaelic or English? Were the recruits supposed to take the oath in the name of Queen right when recruited or after coming to the station? Also, I have wondered about the mid-19th century oath itself (the actual text)? What wages at the time of recruitment? Were advances extended? From where did the passage to India take place (ports, etc.)?

Many questions, I know. Will keep looking.

Victor

I don't particularly know the answers here, but best guess. Something you may look at, is where the HEIC had recruiting / training depots in the UK (including Ireland). There might have been only a few. The might also have recruited from trained soldiers in the British Army.

rpatel wrote: »

For instance, what criteria was being used for recruitment apart from the obvious criterion of physical fitness?

Adequate understanding of English. The later in the 19th century and more urban the location, the better the standard of English in the community. Otherwise, I imagine there were few restrictions - once you weren't a complete criminal / drunk and could follow orders.

Did the recruiting officers speak Gaelic or English?

Primarily English. They would have had little use for the Irish language and the army had little use for people who couldn't speak English.

Were the recruits supposed to take the oath in the name of Queen right when recruited or after coming to the station?

I don't know. I imagine it was at the start of training.

Also, I have wondered about the mid-19th century oath itself (the actual text)?

I don't know.

What wages at the time of recruitment?

Probably poor

Were advances extended?

I strongly doubt it.

From where did the passage to India take place (ports, etc.)?

Before the 1840s (when the railways started being built in earnest), they would have been marched to the nearest main port - at the time, there would have been occasional sailing from quite a few ports. They would have travelled by ship to England and then by ship via Gibraltar, Malta and Suez (once the canal was open).

tac foley

rpatel wrote: »

Thanks! I am really eager to get my hands on the details of recruitment. For instance, what criteria was being used for recruitment apart from the obvious criterion of physical fitness? Did the recruiting officers speak Gaelic or English? Were the recruits supposed to take the oath in the name of Queen right when recruited or after coming to the station? Also, I have wondered about the mid-19th century oath itself (the actual text)? What wages at the time of recruitment? Were advances extended? From where did the passage to India take place (ports, etc.)?

Many questions, I know. Will keep looking.

Sir - just a small point - Gaelic is spoken in Western Scotland and the Hebrides. Irish is the language of Ireland, when it is being referred to in English. As was quite common in the British Army of that time, recruiting was done by specially 'prepped' NCO's and SNCO's of the regiment concerned. English was then, and still is, the preferred language of the British Army. Lack of it did not prevent the vast numbers of native-Irish speakers from joining up. Officers per se had very little to do with the recruiting process.

Adding to Victor's post above - and to another post - the basic physical requirements were -

1. the ability to stand vertically whilst breathing.

2. be in possession of two working eyes, hands, feet and ears.

3. not be awaiting trial for any offence.

4. be visibly free from any noxious or communicable diseases.

Pay, BTW, had not changed since Victoria became Queen in 1837, and was basically one shilling [5p/7 cents]] a day, but there was a catch to spending this largesse. All costs for uniform, accommodations, and victualling were deducted from this sum, and as a result soldiers of the rank of private rarely saw money as we understand it today. By comparison, a Victorian brick-layer earned four shillings a day

Recruits were not neither required to read the OOA as individuals, or to speak English with any real knowledge of the language, especially if they were from rural areas of the country, as most recruits were. They were usually gathered en masse, told to raise their right hands, the OOA was read to them and it was understood that they had understood. There was NO OOA in the Irish language which, at that time, was being vigourously suppressed by the English government. After 1868, there was an individual oath, which was probably administered by the simple repetition of the words after the SNCO administering the oath, as required, in the presence of an officer, who represented the monarch by virtue of his commission.

Slightly OT, but, IMO, a valid point to note - as was also common in Wales until well into WW2 - you were not really expected to be able to speak English to any particular level of excellence to join the Army of the time. A very old friend, who retired after a lifetime of shepherding in North Wales, and now now 'gone home', was called up in 1944, and was not able to speak a single word of English when he arrived at Hightown Barracks in Wrexham to join the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He soon learned what he had to learn to survive, and then, bless him, forgot it all when he went home to Corwen at the cessation of hostilities. When I met him first, in the late 1960's, the only English he could recall with any degree of accuracy was two phrases - 'You bloody Taff' and 'mine's a pint'.

tac

PS - THIS is the Victorian promissary Oath of Allegiance after 1868 - according to the Promissory of Oaths Act of that year -

“ I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. ”

P. Breathnach

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - just a small point - Gaelic is spoken in Western Scotland and the Hebrides. Irish is the language of Ireland, when it is being referred to in English....

The Irish people generally refer to the language as "Irish" when they speak among themselves. It is very common for people outside Ireland to refer to it as "Gaelic" and it is not incorrect. To accommodate conversation with non-Irish people I usually refer to the language as "Gaelic".

Usually context makes it clear which Gaelic is being referenced, and if there is any doubt one can use one of the phrases "Irish Gaelic" or "Scots Gaelic".

On the main topic: I have an ancestor who enlisted in Ireland in 1858 and who served in India from 1865 to 1868. So far, I have learned almost nothing about his time there. He was not well-educated (low level of literacy) and spoke only English. I suspect that he did not have a political point of view on British involvement in India either when he was there or afterwards. It was simply one of life's vicissitudes, and I imagine that he was happy to get his discharge and get home to Ireland and get on with civilian life - marry, raise a family, work at various low-paid jobs.

galwaycyclist

tac foley wrote: »

Slightly OT, but, IMO, a valid point to note - as was also common in Wales until well into WW2 - you were not really expected to be able to speak English to any particular level of excellence to join the Army of the time.

There is to this day a thing called "military vocabularly", under which a range of items have one, and only one, name. There are only three types of tree, a limited number of colours and so on.

tac foley

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is to this day a thing called "military vocabularly", under which a range of items have one, and only one, name. There are only three types of tree, a limited number of colours and so on.

Which particular army have you in mind here? I've not ever heard of such a thing.

tac

pedroeibar1

Originally Posted by pedroeibar1
At a more gentrified level there was a strong tradition that younger sons joined the HEIC – the cost was considerably less than joining a ‘good’ regiment in the British Army (at a time when commissions were bought) and the potential rewards were considerably higher. That 'Irishness' brought loyalty from serving NCOs and troops.

rpatel wrote: »

Not sure I understand what you refer to exactly by 'Irishness' in the above statement. It is of particular interest to me as you seem to imply that there is an inherent racial attribute that makes Irish soldiers - mercenaries, if I may, given that most of the times they weren't fighting for the homeland - loyal to their recruiting armies. Please elucidate further, if and when time permits.

It is unclear what research you have done, judging by your questions and assertions. I am not an expert on the topic, but I do know that calling the events surrounding 1857 the ‘First War of Indian Independence’ is not generally accepted and has been the topic of much debate even in recent times. It is quite a leap of faith to make that attribution, particularly as Nehru was really the first person to underscore that usage starting in the 1930’s. (I agree that it was first used c 1910 but it was not in common usage until Nehru’s era.)

As for 'inherent racial attributes', I did not imply anything of the sort. A soldier’s loyalty foremost is to his comrades and then his regiment. That is a well-known basic military tenet, and explains why regiments are formed from different regions and led by officers from those regions. (Munsters, Leinsters, Connaught Rangers, etc.) One of the loyalty ‘ties’ between officers and their men was their Irishness, just as the Cameroon Highlanders, Welch, etc each generally had officers from the same places.

Nor do I agree with the suggestion that the NCO’s generally were illiterate; most would have been selected and promoted to that rank because of their literacy, a principal requirement being the ability to read and understand written orders. Furthermore, National Schools were established in Ireland in the early the 1830’s so even in the lower ranks most would at least be semi-literate by the late 1850’s.

I also find your choice of words strange – ‘mercenary’ is an emotive word, particularly in the context used by you and even more so when Ireland was coloured the same shade as all other parts of the Empire and Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so in effect they were fighting for their homeland.

galwaycyclist

tac foley wrote: »

Which particular army have you in mind here? I've not ever heard of such a thing.

tac

Still one of the first fieldcraft lessons in Irish infantry training but I am certain it came from the British.

tac foley

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Still one of the first fieldcraft lessons in Irish infantry training but I am certain it came from the British.

Ah, right. I think I see what you mean, after all, how many alternative words can you think of for 'tank', apart from 'tank'? Or 'grenade' for 'grenade'? I 'spose you could tell the troops to 'engage the necessary manual tools in military landscaping of the protective kind', or just give the order to 'pick up that ^&£$%^ shovel and dig a trench'.

I'll admit then, in spite of serving in the British Army from September 1967 until August 2000, that the simplified vocabulary which you mention must have passed me by. True, we did not refer to trees by their genus and species but whether or not they were bushy-topped or bare or simply taller than any others nearby, not did we use any of the many names of colours so belovéd of car makers or fashion designers, but then I certainly don't recall having long and detailed conversations with whoever was in charge on those occasions when bi-directional shooting was involved.

Infantry [I was NOT actually in the infantry per se, but like everyone, nevertheless did a lot of infantry-type stuff] Fire Orders are required to be succinct and to the point, and not open to misinterpetation because of needless and untimely complexity. However, in everyday conversation we certainly used posh words of more than one syllable, in fact, I've just used several there in my last sentence without my head exploding from the effort. Many of us can actually hold lucid and meaningful conversations using sentences with lots of words in them - even with posh folks. Indeed, some of us could, with a degree of squinting, actually pass as ordinary folks, just like you.

tac

solas111

http://youtu.be/0hV9fvhCmbw

rpatel

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

It is unclear what research you have done, judging by your questions and assertions. I am not an expert on the topic, but I do know that calling the events surrounding 1857 the ‘First War of Indian Independence’ is not generally accepted and has been the topic of much debate even in recent times. It is quite a leap of faith to make that attribution, particularly as Nehru was really the first person to underscore that usage starting in the 1930’s. (I agree that it was first used c 1910 but it was not in common usage until Nehru’s era.)

The term "First War of Indian Independence" is used in India as I said in my original post. British nomenclature is, of course, different, and is the one that most of the people in the British Isles and elsewhere may be used to. The term was first coined by a Hindu Nationalist Veer Savarkar (*) in 1909, and was endorsed by Nehru, and Government of free India.

(*) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As for 'inherent racial attributes', I did not imply anything of the sort. A soldier’s loyalty foremost is to his comrades and then his regiment. That is a well-known basic military tenet, and explains why regiments are formed from different regions and led by officers from those regions. (Munsters, Leinsters, Connaught Rangers, etc.) One of the loyalty ‘ties’ between officers and their men was their Irishness, just as the Cameroon Highlanders, Welch, etc each generally had officers from the same places.

Alright, got it.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I also find your choice of words strange – ‘mercenary’ is an emotive word, particularly in the context used by you and even more so when Ireland was coloured the same shade as all other parts of the Empire and Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so in effect they were fighting for their homeland.

Not strange, at least not from my perspective. I would use that word to describe a soldier that fights for a foreign army. In other words, for a cause other than nationalism. From what little I know, it seems that most peasant Irish soldiers were fighting for causes other than nationalism as the majority did not consider Queen's rule to be their chosen form of government. Sure enough, there would have been exceptions to this.

To draw an analogy, there were a majority of Indian soldiers in the Indian Army under the Raj. I would use the term 'mercenary' to describe them as well as they're fighting for a foreign nation's interests and not their own nation's interests. I highly doubt that invasion / occupation changes what a person considers as his or her homeland - be it India or Ireland.

galwaycyclist

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, right. I think I see what you mean, after all, how many alternative words can you think of for 'tank', apart from 'tank'? Or 'grenade' for 'grenade'? I 'spose you could tell the troops to 'engage the necessary manual tools in military landscaping of the protective kind', or just give the order to 'pick up that ^&£$%^ shovel and dig a trench'.

I'll admit then, in spite of serving in the British Army from September 1967 until August 2000, that the simplified vocabulary which you mention must have passed me by. True, we did not refer to trees by their genus and species but whether or not they were bushy-topped or bare or simply taller than any others nearby, not did we use any of the many names of colours so belovéd of car makers or fashion designers, but then I certainly don't recall having long and detailed conversations with whoever was in charge on those occasions when bi-directional shooting was involved.

Infantry [I was NOT actually in the infantry per se, but like everyone, nevertheless did a lot of infantry-type stuff] Fire Orders are required to be succinct and to the point, and not open to misinterpetation because of needless and untimely complexity. However, in everyday conversation we certainly used posh words of more than one syllable, in fact, I've just used several there in my last sentence without my head exploding from the effort. Many of us can actually hold lucid and meaningful conversations using sentences with lots of words in them - even with posh folks. Indeed, some of us could, with a degree of squinting, actually pass as ordinary folks, just like you.

tac

Judging distance - Henry Reed

http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/judgingdistances.html

That maps are of time, not place, so far as the army
Happens to be concerned—the reason being,
Is one which need not delay us. Again, you know
There are three kinds of tree, three only, the fir and the poplar,
And those which have bushy tops to; and lastly
          That things only seem to be things.

A barn is not called a barn, to put it more plainly,
Or a field in the distance, where sheep may be safely grazing.
You must never be over-sure. You must say, when reporting:
At five o'clock in the central sector is a dozen
Of what appear to be animals; whatever you do,
          Don't call the bleeders sheep.

Victor

rpatel wrote: »

Not strange, at least not from my perspective. I would use that word to describe a soldier that fights for a foreign army. In other words, for a cause other than nationalism. From what little I know, it seems that most peasant Irish soldiers were fighting for causes other than nationalism as the majority did not consider Queen's rule to be their chosen form of government. Sure enough, there would have been exceptions to this.

To draw an analogy, there were a majority of Indian soldiers in the Indian Army under the Raj. I would use the term 'mercenary' to describe them as well as they're fighting for a foreign nation's interests and not their own nation's interests. I highly doubt that invasion / occupation changes what a person considers as his or her homeland - be it India or Ireland.

I think we understand your point, but the use of the term is not the ordinary one and it's use could be seen as inflammatory. Those soldiers, whatever their motivations, were fighting in the army of their country as it was then constituted.

You wouldn't call conscripts 'mercenaries' if they were fighting a war other than one of national survival, would you?

rpatel

Victor wrote: »

I think we understand your point, but the use of the term is not the ordinary one and it's use could be seen as inflammatory. Those soldiers, whatever their motivations, were fighting in the army of their country as it was then constituted.

You wouldn't call conscripts 'mercenaries' if they were fighting a war other than one of national survival, would you?

Got it, and I agree with what you're saying. I really don't mean to be offending anyone. I understand that we are discussing a sensitive subject matter here. Thanks for intervening.

P. Breathnach

rpatel wrote: »

...
Not strange, at least not from my perspective. I would use that word to describe a soldier that fights for a foreign army. In other words, for a cause other than nationalism. From what little I know, it seems that most peasant Irish soldiers were fighting for causes other than nationalism as the majority did not consider Queen's rule to be their chosen form of government. Sure enough, there would have been exceptions to this....

You are supposing that the normal reason for enlisting in an army is some form of patriotism. I'd be highly sceptical of such an assumption, particularly in considering the motives of rank and file soldiers.

Many saw soldiering as a job in circumstances where jobs were scarce; some saw the possibility of adventure; Irish folk tradition also suggests that many were tricked into enlisting. And some, probably small, proportion of them saw themselves as serving their queen and their country.

Merch

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I would not find Crosbie’s assertion (as quoted by Missent above) particularly controversial. Additionally, most Irish people today do not know the difference between the Indian Army and the Army in India, so comment often is not often accurate.

In 1916 most of the Irish population did not give a damn about the GPO/Rising when it happened, same the Fenian Rising before that and the Rebellion of 1798 before that, so why expect that the HEIC recruits take an ‘anti-colonial view’ and sympathise with the natives? Those troops were in a hostile environment with their 'mates' and primarily for that reason would identify with their army comrades. Secondly for religious (Christian), education, colour, social background and aspirational reasons they would have identified with the HEIC, not the natives.

At a more gentrified level there was a strong tradition that younger sons joined the HEIC – the cost was considerably less than joining a ‘good’ regiment in the British Army (at a time when commissions were bought) and the potential rewards were considerably higher. That 'Irishness' brought loyalty from serving NCOs and troops. Similarly at a governmental / administrator level, there was a disproportionately large number of Irish in the Indian Civil Service – and many of them did very good work - eg the Stokes brothers, including Whitely Stokes the Celtic scholar. TCD was a training school for the ICS and the Church (Established). All these ties were reinforced by being Irish first and the R.Catholic / Protestant divide was left far behind.

William Burrell, an early shareholder in the HEIC, later leased lands around Kinsale / Bandon on Ireland’s south coast for shipbuilding and timber ‘harvesting’ and a few Company ships were built there in the early 1600s.

'Plain Tales from the Raj' by Charles Allen gives very good insight on the Punjab as does his 'A Soldier of the Company'. There is quite a good history of Nicholson in the former.

Id agree with this more than most Ive read here, not that Im criticising others, while I have visited some parts of India and have an interest in history I am not significantly (have not made myself aware) of the specifics of the events you describe such as locations and who participated (OP), other than the supposed spark (the animal fat covering of the paper ammunition) .
I would add also, that I imagine the groups involved in the uprising didnt differentiate between the white Irish soldiers or other white British soldiers as to where they originated from, I can imagine there were desperate moments of defence where soldiers were fighting for their lives and whehter they agreed with the motives of the local people or not would have been surpassed by their own instinct for survival, which would be better helped by fighting than trying to explain they were Irish (in part Im joking about this, as this would be a completely impractical proposition).

On the other hand, had they declined to fight, it is very certain they would have ended up on the wrong side of a firing squad, as Im more aware happened many soldiers in the British Army during WW1 for shell shock or whatever reason (Im sure there were plenty of Irish that ended up that way too) and both the Russian and German Armies during WW2 and Im sure other armies but not to the extent Ive read/been informed.
Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.
In that light, it seems they had few options, not fight and die or fight, either A decline to fight and die at the hands of those involved in the uprising or die at the hands of some other unit of the British forces or fight and possibly live.

Balmed Out wrote: »

Would that not have been born out of a competition for the same work though which wouldnt have been the case in India

Id have thought so, although racism towards african americans was not the sole preserve of the Irish.

rpatel

Merch wrote: »

Id agree with this more than most Ive read here, not that Im criticising others, while I have visited some parts of India and have an interest in history I am not significantly (have not made myself aware) of the specifics of the events you describe such as locations and who participated (OP), other than the supposed spark (the animal fat covering of the paper ammunition) .
I would add also, that I imagine the groups involved in the uprising didnt differentiate between the white Irish soldiers or other white British soldiers as to where they originated from, I can imagine there were desperate moments of defence where soldiers were fighting for their lives and whehter they agreed with the motives of the local people or not would have been surpassed by their own instinct for survival, which would be better helped by fighting than trying to explain they were Irish (in part Im joking about this, as this would be a completely impractical proposition).

On the other hand, had they declined to fight, it is very certain they would have ended up on the wrong side of a firing squad, as Im more aware happened many soldiers in the British Army during WW1 for shell shock or whatever reason (Im sure there were plenty of Irish that ended up that way too) and both the Russian and German Armies during WW2 and Im sure other armies but not to the extent Ive read/been informed.
Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.
In that light, it seems they had few options, not fight and die or fight, either A decline to fight and die at the hands of those involved in the uprising or die at the hands of some other unit of the British forces or fight and possibly live.

Id have thought so, although racism towards african americans was not the sole preserve of the Irish.

I understand what you are saying. But this exercise (of communicating with you all through this platform) is aimed towards finding out from correspondences, or family anecdotes as to what they actually "thought" of the rebellion (and not how they acted). And, to that end, the pointer to Michael Mallin's correspondences with Ms. Hicks is most helpful to me as it shows what he "thought" of a similar situation (that took place about 40 years after the rebellion but still relevant).

I think, at this point, I would really like to thank all who pointed me to these various sources. I am realizing that I have a lot to study. Ireland's relationship with Britain and with British colonies is much more complex than I had initially thought. I'll go into hiatus for now but will come back for more, I am sure :-)

tac foley

Merch wrote: »

Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.

Not treachery - the charge of treason is far more complex than that. British Soldiers executed in WW1 by the British Armed Forces totalled no more than 306, certainly not the wholesale slaughter meted out by flying squads of German military police [aka Kettenhunden/chaindogs after the gorget they wore at the throat] during WW2 or by the Red Army, whose NKVD followed soldiers into battle and shot any lagging behind to encourage the others.

The charges brought against British soldiers were simple ones of military discipline, and included any or all of the following, plus others I can't lay my paws on right now -

1. Cowardice in the face of the enemy.

2. Desertion in the face of the enemy.

3. Failure to carry out a direct order in the face of the enemy.

4. Failure or omission in carrying out a a direct order in the face of the enemy.

FYI, twenty-eight soldiers of Irish descent were executed in WW1 on charges ranging from desertion to wilful disobedience. The book, 'Forgotten Soldiers' by Stephen Walker, tells the story.

My own view is that twenty-eight - a lamentable figure in any event - out of a total Irish commitment of well of over a quarter of a million speaks for the great resilience of the Irish fighter over many others.

tac

Merch

tac foley wrote: »

Not treachery - the charge of treason is far more complex than that. British Soldiers executed in WW1 by the British Armed Forces totalled no more than 306, certainly not the wholesale slaughter meted out by flying squads of German military police [aka Kettenhunden/chaindogs after the gorget they wore at the throat] during WW2 or by the Red Army, whose NKVD followed soldiers into battle and shot any lagging behind to encourage the others.

The charges brought against British soldiers were simple ones of military discipline, and included any or all of the following, plus others I can't lay my paws on right now -

1. Cowardice in the face of the enemy.

2. Desertion in the face of the enemy.

3. Failure to carry out a direct order in the face of the enemy.

4. Failure or omission in carrying out a a direct order in the face of the enemy.

FYI, twenty-eight soldiers of Irish descent were executed in WW1 on charges ranging from desertion to wilful disobedience. The book, 'Forgotten Soldiers' by Stephen Walker, tells the story.

My own view is that twenty-eight - a lamentable figure in any event - out of a total Irish commitment of well of over a quarter of a million speaks for the great resilience of the Irish fighter over many others.

tac

If the military term is treason,
I thought treason was against a nation and maybe an army, I didnt think of the word treason at the time, treachery seemed suitable, it seems almost interchangeable, but if thats the word they use.

I think you could add self inflicted injury to that list too,
The above seems it could support my view, I had thought the figures were greater in the BEF in WW1, but any of those charges could easily be trumped up and from what I read many were.
Many actions could easily be construed as suitable to have a soldier shot at dawn.
Cowardice, taking cover
Desertion, some necessary retreat (or alternative, die/capture)
Failure to carry out a direct order,
Attack that trench, Yes sir, can we wait till they change belts on the MG or till our artillery can pin them down sir, Sergeant, take his name, if he survives the battle, I want this man court martialed.

I read somewhere that soldiers carrying message between trenches were nabbed and put up on charges to be court martialled for desertion.

Anyway, I think what I was saying is that it is less likely for men to try pay attention to the enemy's cause, as all that will be in store for them is a different bullet from their own side, one which will not miss.

As for Russian, I should have said Soviet, 13,500 executions during the battle of Stalingrad excluding those unaccounted for, to maintain order. I read a figure somewhere before for the German side, for refusal to fight, cowardice (probably shell/battle shock too) but cant find it.

Anyway, off topic

Qualitymark

@rpatel, you might be interested in this website, which has a brisk outline of the Irish military experience in India:

http://www.roguery.com/golden/east/index.htm

and in James Connolly's 1908 article, The Coming Revolt in India:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1908/01/india1.htm

(Connolly was a child soldier in the British Army, leaving his desperately poor family in Scotland to serve in Ireland from the age of 14 to 21.)

You ask why the Irish, themselves disadvantaged by colonisation and occupation, would have helped their colonisers to oppress Indians; the answer is that 'Divide and Rule' is the watchword of the exploiter. If you can divide people from each other, there's no chance that they'll stand together against you.

Ireland was the warehouse of the British Army, with huge barracks dotting every town, and enormous numbers of soldiers living in them. I was recently looking at prison records for the teens of the century and soldiers featured largely, as burglars, fraudsters, rapists, deserters, thieves, murderers, etc. Surprisingly, they were mostly 5'3" tall.

I have read - but where I can't remember - that the British sited their power in the most prosperous cities in India, and that these particular cities are now the poorest in the subcontinent.

Your questions on pay and conditions may partly be answered by this piece:

http://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/Karsten.pdf

tac foley

Treason - the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.

As far as a soldier in the British Army of WW1 is concerned, simply failing to obey a direct order was enough to earn the firing squad, as is 'failing to prosecute an attack with sufficient vigour'. Getting lost, as some did in the literal fog of war, and failing to be there when the fog cleared, would earn you a firing squad, as a few otherwise brave soldiers found to their cost. Not being in possession of your issued firearm when found wandering behind the lines was also a shootable offence.

Enough of that, having torn the a$$ out of it, and let's look at the correspondence from Irish soldiers to their kith and kin back home in the 'ould sod.

Not much, is there?

A few reasons for this might be -

1. General illiteracy on the part of the soldier - it was commonplace for a soldier to ask a comrade to write a letter for him - or even a friendly sergeant or corporal.

2. Lack of ready communication between India and UK for the lower orders. Sure, officers could and did send mail, but who was going to pay for the private soldier to send HIS letter back to Ireland? It cost a lot of money to do it in those days, and the usual means of getting news back to relatives was to give a letter to a returnee, if one could be found. Few were. In the days when regiments spent many years away from home - ten years was commonplace - then, as now, units moved en masse, and there was little point in writing home if you could reasonably expect to be there within six months or so.

So we learn lives of the the officers, but little of the lives of the men that they commanded. One facinating and probably unique story was that related by Rifleman Harris, who went through a great part of the Napoleonic War. 'The Recollections of Rifleman Harris' is a memoir published in 1848 of the experiences of an enlisted soldier in the 95th Regiment of Foot in the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. The eponymous soldier was Benjamin Randell Harris, a private who joined the regiment in 1803 and served in many of the early campaigns in the Peninsula War. In the mid-1830s, Harris was working as a cobbler in London when he met an acquaintance, Captain Henry Curling, who asked him to dictate an account of his experiences of army life. This account was then held by Curling until 1848, when he succeeded in getting the manuscript published, preserving one of the very few surviving accounts of military service in this era from a private soldier.

AFAIK, this has no counterpart with any Irish soldier serving at the same time, or subsequently.

It is, however, a telling tale of unbelievable hardship, squalor, suffering and bravery of an almost unimaginable scale - made all the more poignant because of the off-hand, matter-of-fact way in which it is related.

tac

Victor

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surprisingly, they were mostly 5'3" tall.

That wouldn't have been unusual. As food supplies and food security have improved over the last few centuries, average heights have increased by 20-50mm per generation.

Qualitymark

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Judging distance - Henry Reed

http://www.solearabiantree.net/namingofparts/judgingdistances.html

Wonderful poem about the dehumanisation of war and armies. "Fields where sheep may safely graze" become "the central sector" so you can bomb them; trees with their soft green leaves and nests full of babies are only fir, poplar or bushy-topped, so that you can bomb them.