WW1 Irish soldiers and Easter Rising 1916

Dr.Nightdub

I'm pretty sure that O'Halpin's research only covers the period up to the signing of the Treaty

Jesus.

Do you know why all these historians use 1917 as the start date as opposed to 1919? There weren't many (any?) political killings in '17 & '18, were there?

The Anglo Irish war commenced in 1919 I always thought

Peregrinus

You'd have to read the book to find out. But my guess is that he has figures for the overall period covered by his book, 1916-23, and he divides these into:

1916 - the Rising
1917-21 - the War of Independence
1922-23 - the Civil War

In fact the figures for 1917/18 would be tiny; it is hardly going to matter which category he assigns them to, but he wants the three categories to cover the entire period between them.

Jesus.

But like I said above, he's not the only one that does it. Diarmuid Ferriter does so aswell as do others I've come across. You're probably correct that they want to cover the entire period but I don't really understand why. If there was no conflict in '17 & '18, why include them at all when calculating casualties?

Weird

pedroeibar1

Not weird, it’s just about neat tidy minds producing (unsuccessfully, it would appear) a schedule to avoid criticism from pedants who obsess about trivia. As Peregrinus says
1916 - the Rising
1917-21 - the War of Independence
1922-23 - the Civil War
No gaps, nowhere for the zany to hypothesize about a few deaths falling through the cracks of time…….:)

Jesus.

It is a pity that we must capitulate common sense for the sake of the zany but perhaps its a necessary evil

HIB

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

However recruitment into the British Army even in Co. Cork one of the most violent counties in Ireland remained high with thousands of men joining up.

Was this actually during the war of independence?
Did they risk reprisals against their families if they joined the army?
Was it a comparatively well paid job?

Thanks again for the summary.... One thing I had never considered but is I suppose, obvious in hindsight, is that many soldiers would have simply switched uniforms, from British to Irish in 1921!

Judgement Day

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not weird, it’s just about neat tidy minds producing (unsuccessfully, it would appear) a schedule to avoid criticism from pedants who obsess about trivia. As Peregrinus says
1916 - the Rising
1917-21 - the War of Independence
1922-23 - the Civil War
No gaps, nowhere for the zany to hypothesize about a few deaths falling through the cracks of time…….:)

Would the Soloheadbeg Ambush of 21st January 1919 not be considered the start of the War of Independence?

http://www.policehistory.com/soloheadbeg.html

kabakuyu

Hopefully, O'Halpin will do a better job than he did on the infamous 2011 TV programe "In the name of the Republic"

http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/03/28/tv-documentary-review-in-the-name-of-the-republic/#.VFT2qCKsXTo

Jesus.

AAh THAT'S O'Halpin. I remember that show, it was very poor. If I had've known who's research I was dealing with I wouldn't have bothered!

Historybluff

O'Halpin has written an article* on deaths caused by the Irish Revolution between January 1917 and December 1921.

He says there were 2,141 deaths (including 11 in Great Britain). Of these 1,243 (52%) were combatants and 898 (48%) were civilians.

Of the 1,243 combatants killed, 467 (38%) were members of the IRA, 514 (41%) were police and 262 (21%) were British military.

O'Halpin's TV documentary 'In the Name of the Republic' was fairly bad, but I think his written work is good.

*Eunan O'Halpin, 'Counting Terror: Bloody Sunday and The Dead of the Irish Revolution' in David Fitzpatrick (ed.), Terror in Ireland, 1916-1923 (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 2012), pp. 141-157 (O'Halpin has a book coming out on the topic soon.)

Jesus.

That was linked at the top of the page, Bluff

Peregrinus

HIB wrote: »

Thanks again for the summary.... One thing I had never considered but is I suppose, obvious in hindsight, is that many soldiers would have simply switched uniforms, from British to Irish in 1921!

Not so much. A lot of the poeple who joined the National Army in 1922 had been in the British forces, but not immediately before - they had served in 1914-18, been demobilised, done something else for a time, very often been volunteers in the War of Independence, and then joined the National Army. By 1923 probably half of the National Amy consisted of British ex-servicemen, but most of those had left the British forces several years before. (A fair chunk of the Republican forces would also have been British ex-servicemen, but I haven't seen any figures on that.)

For obvious reasons, the British army had downsized significantly in the year or two following 1918. They had no particular need to downsize further in 1922. They did disband a number of regiments which traditionally recruited in what was now the Free State - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers, etc. By the time they were disbanded, they were already much reduced - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, for example, consisted of two battalions, down from a high of 11, and that would be fairly typical. Serving members of the regiments upon disbandment were reassigned to other continuing regiments though I suspect that, individually, if they asked to be discharged they would have been.

HIB

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not so much. A lot of the poeple who joined the National Army in 1922 had been in the British forces, but not immediately before - they had served in 1914-18, been demobilised, done something else for a time, very often been volunteers in the War of Independence, and then joined the National Army. By 1923 probably half of the National Amy consisted of British ex-servicemen, but most of those had left the British forces several years before. (A fair chunk of the Republican forces would also have been British ex-servicemen, but I haven't seen any figures on that.)

For obvious reasons, the British army had downsized significantly in the year or two following 1918. They had no particular need to downsize further in 1922. They did disband a number of regiments which traditionally recruited in what was now the Free State - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers, etc. By the time they were disbanded, they were already much reduced - the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, for example, consisted of two battalions, down from a high of 11, and that would be fairly typical. Serving members of the regiments upon disbandment were reassigned to other continuing regiments though I suspect that, individually, if they asked to be discharged they would have been.

Interesting. So what kind of people actually comprised the British army units which were stationed in Ireland from 1918 - 1922? Were they people born and raised in Ireland? Or, was it the case that the regiments based in Ireland were recruited from England/Scotland/Wales, traditionally?

Peregrinus

Long-term, standard pattern was that regiments raised and based in Ireland had two or three battallions - let's take an example with two battallions, to keep things simple. One battallion would be permanently stationed in, say, India, and would be staffed and equipped for whatever its intended role in India might be. The other battallion would be based in Ireland, and would be used for training, for reserves, for standing down men who for medical or other reasons needed to take a back seat for a while, etc. The home battallion would usually be somewhat understaffed and have the older and crappier eqipment; it was used, basically, to keep the more active battallion up to full strength. In a three-battallion regiment, two battallions would be abroad and one at home, for training, reserves, etc.

In 1919-21, although British military presence in Ireland was massively increased, this pattern didn't actually change. The British didn't want to use Irish troops to hold Ireland. It was shockingly bad for morale, plus their reliablity and loyalty was called into question by the circumstances. So the additional troops brought in were not Irish battallions brought home, but English, Scottish or Welsh units. Plus the Black-and-Tans, who were temporary troops, and the Auxiliaries, who were technically police and not army, though it would have been hard to tell from looking at them. There were Irish people in both the Tans and the Auxiliaries, but they were a minority and they were invariably sent to serve well away from their home districts, in company with (and usually under the command of) English or Scottish men.

johnny_doyle

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus the Black-and-Tans, who were temporary troops, and the Auxiliaries, who were technically police and not army, though it would have been hard to tell from looking at them.

Tans were temporary police rather than temporary troops. Generally stationed individually with normal RIC; Auxiliaries were generally organised along company lines and worked as a unit, often independent of the normal RIC.