When is an army an 'Army' in History

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By 1920 the rulers in Ireland were not democratically representative. Neither were they native so if these are 2 qualifying factors the comparison seems good to me.
???

That depends on a viewpoint. At the time Ireland was part of a United Kingdom, so that is why one side called a conflict a 'Rising' and the other a 'Rebellion'. The American War of Independence could just as easily be described as a civil war as they fought their fellow Crown subjects. Much of it is simple semantics; the main issue is that the IRA in recent decades has continuously tried to legitimize its position by claiming to be the 'army' of the Republic and to be the the continuation of those that fought in the 1916-22 era. Many of he latter were in considerable disagreement with those claims and assertions. Similarly the vast majority of the people of the Republic did not accept the IRA's claim to be a legitimate army and it had no mandate in the 'South', whatever about its minority support in the 'North'.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

...

; the main issue is that the IRA in recent decades has continuously tried to legitimize its position by claiming to be the 'army' of the Republic and to be the the continuation of those that fought in the 1916-22 era. Many of he latter were in considerable disagreement with those claims and assertions. Similarly the vast majority of the people of the Republic did not accept the IRA's claim to be a legitimate army and it had no mandate in the 'South', whatever about its minority support in the 'North'.

I agree fully, the only real link is they call themselves by the same name. Its a discussion for another thread though (before the row breaks out:eek:)

jonniebgood1

Jawgap wrote: »

What about post the Treaty then - was the Free State government not representative? And if it wasn't why was the IRA reduced to 90% of its pre-Treaty strength by people leaving?

Post treaty they were representative- I fail to see your point though Jawgap??? My point was that in 1920 the Dail was the meeting place of the majority after the 1918 elections. The 'rulers' however were the parliament in London. So at the point of time in 1920 referred the situation saw decisions on Ireland made by people elected in Bristol, London, etc...

Jawgap wrote: »

Incidentally, if the IRA was an 'army' what uniform did it wear? What was its rank structure? How were its support corps (logistics, medical, engineers, singals etc) organised? And why did it distinguish between 'reliable,' 'unreliable' and 'active' men?

For uniform I would think for the guerrilla type warfare they did not wish to stand out from the general population. Given the number of British soldiers and the massively superior armaments at the time a catch all uniform seems unlikely. Does an army need a uniform to be called an army? i.e. do S.A.S work undercover out of uniform or do armies operate covertly behind enemy lines?

On rank structure the pre civil war IRA did have a rank structure but I cannot tell you off hand what it was.

Support corps as described by Tom Barry were basic but functional I would say. Using him as an example, Barry organised training for his guerrilla forces. He used networks of scouts to spy on their enemies and local guides for logistics when necessary. While this was generally rudimentary in any kind of technical example it seemed to work. Reference their escape when surrounded by over 1000 British troops at Crossbarry. I believe the escape was by a full IRA brigade of soldiers.

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

do S.A.S work undercover out of uniform or do armies operate covertly behind enemy lines?

Sir, with respect, the SAS is an authorised legally-formed part of an institutionalised and legally-found army of a sovereign nation, regardless of what it gets up to in civilian clothes, often, as in Northern Ireland, fighting a war against other people in civilian clothes. The SAS, unlike the terrorist organisation that you mention, has a regimented and uniformed organisation just like any other part of the British Army, with rank and organisational structure based on military organisation, not handy name-calling. Like any other part of the Army, it owes its existence and authority to the Secretary of State for Defence, and there on to the government of the United Kingdom, to whom it is ultimately answerable in the Ministry of Defence and the Houses of Parliament of this democratic nation.

As for the use of the word brigade, with regard to irregulars, I earnestly suggest that you look up what an Army 'brigade' actually looks like, and I mean an Army brigade of a founded army, not a group of irregulars who call themselves a brigade.

And of course armies operate covertly behind enemy lines.

This thread is going nowhere, IMO.

tac

steddyeddy

I don't accept that a soldier has to part of a legally recognised state. There's too many variables at play. That an army has to be legally recognised by all parties is laughable. Army or not the bigger side will "spin" the other side as terrorists and vice versa. It's too much opinion.

steddyeddy

tac foley wrote: »

I believe that I know what being a soldier 'actually means'. After all, I WAS one for thirty-three years.:P

By that definition, I also know what a terrorist is, and for the same reason.

tac

You "know" what a terrorist is because the people you might have fought against was labelled as such. I worked in Africa for a few years in conservation. I can assure you the armies there would have no hesitation in calling the American or British armed forces "terrorist. As I say it's a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Reekwind

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't accept that a soldier has to part of a legally recognised state. There's too many variables at play.

Not to mention that it's a deeply anachronistic definition. tac's talk of "the nation" when defining militias is particularly egregious.

Bur frankly, this entire thread is an exercise in hair-splitting and absurd attempts at categorising what is inherently relative. Ireland itself emphasises this. In the period 1916-1923 a single person could conceivably move from 'rebel' to 'soldier' to 'rebel' to 'terrorist' without ever changing loyalties or unit*. Objectively nothing about our hypothetical person has changed, just how he was perceived by others. Trying to trot out definitions to claim that he was actually a rebel/soldier/terrorist all along is at best pointless and a worst an exercise in politically-driven revisionism.

*Obviously, something not unique to Ireland. The same can be seen in the various paramilitary conflicts across the rest of contemporary post-war Europe, for example.

Jawgap

Well I wouldn't see it as hair splitting.

I don't know how its possible to analyse and discuss any number of conflicts or wars (post-1648) without having a clear idea of what an army is compared to a militia compared to a revolutionary war band; what a soldier or qualified combatant is compared to a rebel, an insurgent or a terrorist; what an insurgency is compared to a rebellion compared to a revolution; and what a war is compared to conflict compared to terrorism.

I'm not sure wars and conflicts such as....
The American Revolution and the Revolutionary Wars
The Peninsular War (and other Napoleonic Wars, as well as the French Revolutionary Wars)
Aspects of WW1 & WW2
The Viet Nam War (Second Indo-China)
The Bosnian War
etc

can be discussed and analysed to the fullest without such definitions, which are more than semantic.

If people want to accept an army is army just because the word 'army' appears in the organisation's name then it's not for me to stop them.........but just because the word is used, it doesn't make the organisation's members soldiers......

tac foley

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't accept that a soldier has to part of a legally recognised state. There's too many variables at play. That an army has to be legally recognised by all parties is laughable. Army or not the bigger side will "spin" the other side as terrorists and vice versa. It's too much opinion.

Just for the sake of keeping this increasingly fatuous thread going, why do you imagine that the state of the Republic of Ireland has proscribed the IRA/PIRA/RIRA and made membership of its 'organisation' a crime against the State?

Sure they 'recognise' them - but as terrorists.

tac

Reekwind

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I wouldn't see it as hair splitting.

I don't know how its possible to analyse and discuss any number of conflicts or wars (post-1648) without having a clear idea of what an army is compared to a militia compared to a revolutionary war band; what a soldier or qualified combatant is compared to a rebel, an insurgent or a terrorist; what an insurgency is compared to a rebellion compared to a revolution; and what a war is compared to conflict compared to terrorism.

Which is all an entirely different discussion to the one happening above. What is being discussed is not the difference between, say, a large structured army (note the lower case) and irregular partisan formations but who has the right to call themselves an Army. It is, as I see it, entirely a question of legitimacy.

...can be discussed and analysed to the fullest without such definitions, which are more than semantic.

Anyone who struggles to discuss, say, the Vietnam War because they can't decide (or gets worked up about) the exact definition of the Viet Cong is, to be blunt, someone not worth engaging with. Outside of the question of legitimacy, there is no good reason to be baffled by the nature of parliamentary units.

Jawgap

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is all an entirely different discussion to the one happening above. What is being discussed is not the difference between, say, a large structured army (note the lower case) and irregular partisan formations but who has the right to call themselves an Army. It is, as I see it, entirely a question of legitimacy.

As per above, anyone can call themselves an army, and there's no denying that right.

Reekwind wrote: »

Anyone who struggles to discuss, say, the Vietnam War because they can't decide (or gets worked up about) the exact definition of the Viet Cong is, to be blunt, someone not worth engaging with. Outside of the question of legitimacy, there is no good reason to be baffled by the nature of parliamentary units.

Actually it's nothing to do with applying an exact definition to the VC - it's do with the fact that the nature of combat changes and evolves over the course of a conflict as forces change, evolve and become more formalised- as the waning of the VC and the rise of the NVA demonstrated and the implications that had on, for example, higher forms of operation.....

......likewise the Chinese Revolution and Mao's Three Stages or Galula's ideas about the interplay between 'regular army' and associated subversive support units.

Galula has an interesting discussion on what an 'army' is - basically an insurgent and a soldier both support political establishments. Except in the case of the insurgent the political establishment is a party and the armed forces are the party’s forces.

A soldier's political establishment is the country’s government, which may or may not be supported by a party or by a coalition of parties. "The army is the nation’s army, reflecting the consensus or the lack of consensus in the nation."

In other words, an 'army' with a political wing is not an army - but it can still call itself that if it wants, 3 million PLA personnel can't be wrong........

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, with respect, the SAS is an authorised legally-formed part of an institutionalised and legally-found army of a sovereign nation, regardless of what it gets up to in civilian clothes, often, as in Northern Ireland, fighting a war against other people in civilian clothes. The SAS, unlike the terrorist organisation that you mention, has a regimented and uniformed organisation just like any other part of the British Army, with rank and organisational structure based on military organisation, not handy name-calling. Like any other part of the Army, it owes its existence and authority to the Secretary of State for Defence, and there on to the government of the United Kingdom, to whom it is ultimately answerable in the Ministry of Defence and the Houses of Parliament of this democratic nation.

If you even bothered to read/ understand my post you would be clear in at least the era that I referred to. That would be a great starting point rather than your repeated pro state definitions of who can call themselves an 'army' or who is a 'terrorist'. Since your interest in this is NI maybe try looking at army collusion there in the currently evolving story coming out of investigations into Pat Finucane and others http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm . Maybe some of these army actions were during your time spent there?

In any case the point I am making throughout this discussion is that I do not accept without question one side in a conflict dismissing the other as quote 'terrorists'. If this was all the justification one needed (i.e. namecalling) then life would be very simple as one persons 'terrorist' is another persons only means of protection.

steddyeddy

I only took one history elective (Ancient Rome). If I took away any point from that it was that you can't assign roles to people based on what labels other people give them.

pedroeibar1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I only took one history elective (Ancient Rome). If I took away any point from that it was that you can't assign roles to people based on what labels other people give them.

It was much easier back then. Two classes of humanity - Romans and everybody else was a Barbarian.:)

pO1Neil

tac foley wrote: »

...who then, after the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922, opposed the lawful government of the country in a civil war, engaging with the national army of that Irish Free State, and did it in civilian clothing. My Uncle Gus was one of them, and my dad was one of the soldiers in the Free State Army.

I'm not about to engage you, or anybody else in any further argument - you yourself wrote the words 'irregulars, guerillas, rebels, the resistance etc.'

There are many on this site from whom that civil war has not yet ended satisfactorily, that is to say, in THEIR favour, and any more like this will simply add fuel to a fire that has not really died down in the last 92 years.

tac

Was it the lawful government or was it a British backed coup by the Free State irregulars to overthrow the lawfully established Irish Republic & the Army of the Republic (the IRA)? A bit like Franco's coup backed by nazi Germany & fascist Italy to overthrow the lawful Spanish Republic.

pO1Neil

Jawgap wrote: »

That being the case, then why was it necessary to negotiate the Anglo-Irish Treaty? If, as you suggest, the 'Irish Republic' was legitimate (as in existed in legal and actual terms) then why would a treaty be necessary?

What of the 'Munster Republic'? What status was that as a self-declared entity?

What about Costello's declaration of the republic and the subsequent passing of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 - were they unnecessary?

A peace treaty was necessary because the British Emire was waging aggressive war against the Irish Republic.

Jawgap

pO1Neil wrote: »

A peace treaty was necessary because the British Emire was waging aggressive war against the Irish Republic.

Really? How can you wage war against something that doesn't exist except as an ideal.....


......and is there another type of war apart from 'aggressive'?

jonniebgood1

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? How can you wage war against something that doesn't exist except as an ideal.....

The question can be turned the other way also-

In the case referred to why was the British army presence so massively increased in some areas of the country if there was no opposing army (circa 1920's). Did British officers at the time of Crossbarry feel they were facing an army or just criminals?

Jawgap

I suspect some people will regard organisations as 'armies' once they use the term 'army' in their description.

I think I've articulated my views on this point clear enough, and others are free to agree / disagree on the point in question.

As to what British officers did or didn't feel towards their opponents, you could do worse than read "British Voices: From the Irish War of Independence 1918-1921."

tac foley

pO1Neil wrote: »

A peace treaty was necessary because the British Emire was waging aggressive war against the Irish Republic.

What?

Independence from the United Kingdom - Declared24 April 1916 - Ratified21 January 1919 - Dominion Status6 December 1922 - Full Independence11 December 1931 - Constitution29 December 1937 - Left Commonwealth18 April 1949

When, exactly, did the British Emire [sic] wage war on the Republic of Ireland?

tac

pO1Neil

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? How can you wage war against something that doesn't exist except as an ideal.....


......and is there another type of war apart from 'aggressive'?

It did exist. It had a huge mandate from the people of Ireland. Just because Britain didn't recognize it dosen't mean it didn't exist.

Defensive war?

pO1Neil

tac foley wrote: »

What?

Independence from the United Kingdom - Declared24 April 1916 - Ratified21 January 1919 - Dominion Status6 December 1922 - Full Independence11 December 1931 - Constitution29 December 1937 - Left Commonwealth18 April 1949

When, exactly, did the British Emire [sic] wage war on the Republic of Ireland?

tac

During the Anglo-Irish war. See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence Belligerents on one side are the Irish Republic & on the other the United kingdom.

pO1Neil

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The question can be turned the other way also-

In the case referred to why was the British army presence so massively increased in some areas of the country if there was no opposing army (circa 1920's). Did British officers at the time of Crossbarry feel they were facing an army or just criminals?

Or at the Battle of Ballinalee when 300 members of the Army of the Irish Republic repealed a joint force of 900 Black & tans, Auxiliaries & regular British Army from burning & looting the town.

http://www.seanmaceoin.ie/#!battle-of-ballinalee/cxvz

tac foley

pO1Neil wrote: »

Or at the Battle of Ballinalee when 300 members of the Army of the Irish Republic repealed a joint force of 900 Black & tans, Auxiliaries & regular British Army from burning & looting the town.

http://www.seanmaceoin.ie/#!battle-of-ballinalee/cxvz

Please note that at that time there was no such recognised nation as the Republic of Ireland for it to have an army of.

tac

pO1Neil

tac foley wrote: »

Please note that at that time there was no such recognised nation as the Republic of Ireland for it to have an army of.

tac

It was recognized by the majority of Irish people & the Soviet Union the largest country in the world. Just because Britain doesn't recognize something doesn't mean it's not real.

pO1Neil

There was this funny story I read in some book about this time period. As we know the Dail/Republican courts didn't have the means to imprison people at the time so their usual method of punishment for petty criminals was to fine them or exile to a island of the west coast for a few weeks.

Anyway this man was exiled to a island for two weeks, the RIC came to rescue him to which the man replied - I am a citizen of the Irish Republic you have no jurisdiction over me only the Republican police have authority over me.. Haha.

steddyeddy

tac foley wrote: »

Please note that at that time there was no such recognised nation as the Republic of Ireland for it to have an army of.

tac

You're sticking with a very subjective definition of army. This imaginary army must have done something right to fight against British forces.

Jawgap

pO1Neil wrote: »

It did exist. It had a huge mandate from the people of Ireland. Just because Britain didn't recognize it dosen't mean it didn't exist.

Defensive war?

Nobody recognised it!!! Name one other country who extended diplomatic recognition to the Irish Republic before 1921?:D

Defensive war? I'm sure you're familiar with Clausewitz's ideas on defensive war (as in a war of national survival, rather than defensive war as a mode of fighting) - it still has to be waged, and is therefore inherently aggressive.

Incidentally about the only thing Caesar and George W. Bush had in common was a proclivity to fight defensive wars - in fact Rome never fought anything except defensive wars (in their view) and there's plenty of writing (beyond Wikipedia) that discusses the US Pacific Campaign in WW2 as defensive war - I'm sure the use of nuclear weapons in that context felt very non-aggressive.

pO1Neil

Jawgap wrote: »

Nobody recognised it!!! Name one other country who extended diplomatic recognition to the Irish Republic before 1921?:D

Defensive war? I'm sure you're familiar with Clausewitz's ideas on defensive war (as in a war of national survival, rather than defensive war as a mode of fighting) - it still has to be waged, and is therefore inherently aggressive.

Incidentally about the only thing Caesar and George W. Bush had in common was a proclivity to fight defensive wars - in fact Rome never fought anything except defensive wars (in their view) and there's plenty of writing (beyond Wikipedia) that discusses the US Pacific Campaign in WW2 as defensive war - I'm sure the use of nuclear weapons in that context felt very non-aggressive.

The Soviet Union http://books.google.ie/books?id=aEzVNpVqENYC&pg=PA1575&lpg=PA1575&dq=%22irish+republic%22+%22soviet+union%22+diplomatic+relations&source=bl&ots=BKoH14bvUp&sig=iwA-pp_-oieN674PnDhyY6y4uUA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w0XaU-nCKqmJ7AbI-YDYCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22irish%20republic%22%20%22soviet%20union%22%20diplomatic%20relations&f=false

"”Both the new Irish Republic and the labour movement were sympathetic to the new soviet regime in Russia. The government of the Soviet Union recognised the Republic, and the Dáil authorised the establishment of diplomatic relations"

It was a coup by the Free State to overthrow the Irish Republic supported by the British government because they were terrified of having a socialist country right on their doorstep, there was also a lot of support in Britain between workers for the establishment of a British socialist Republic around the same time.

Yeah the rest of that post is nice & pretty lingo intended to distract from the subject matter at hand.

Jawgap

pO1Neil wrote: »

Or at the Battle of Ballinalee when 300 members of the Army of the Irish Republic repealed a joint force of 900 Black & tans, Auxiliaries & regular British Army from burning & looting the town.

http://www.seanmaceoin.ie/#!battle-of-ballinalee/cxvz

Seen as your citing information from a site dedicate to Sean MacEoin.......

......do you think the man who seconded the Dail motion that the Anglo-Irish Treaty be adopted, and who served as CoS in the National Army would agree with the idea that the post-Treaty IRA were an army, never mind the army of the Irish Republic?

.....also the site says that MacEoin was in favour of the Treaty because it

...would mean the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland and the formation of an Irish army, which would itself be a guarantee of independence

If an army already existed, then why would one need to be formed....

The site also discusses MacEoin's role in getting the then Free State admitted to the League of Nations - if the Republic existed, why didn't it apply to join the League in 1919?

A most useful site, thanks for linking to it.......