Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
2nd worst war for Irish?
-
04-12-2014 8:09pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Santa Cruz wrote: »There are certain people who won't accept that of course and will try to make the Kilmichael Ambush the primary military action of the 20th century
But of course it was. Didn't the Japanese sing "The boys of Kilmichael" when they took Singapore from the British?
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
pedroeibar1 wrote: »(Ireland never was one to begin with
To a point. I was at Brian Boru's "funeral" in Swords during the Summer (1,000th anniversary), the High King of Ireland.
She had a common language, customs, law etc and she was no more or less a nation than most other Countries we now describe as such.pedroeibar1 wrote: »Parnell that Queen Victoria gave nothing out of her private purse (she did, and encouraged others to do so raising £200k during the Famine as pointed out on the neighbouring thread.)
I never heard Parnell's claims. I don't know what Queen Victoria giving a few quid to a starving nation has to do with anything though. As if that would in anyway make up for the catastrophe that was inflicted on the Irish people. Its almost irrelevant.pedroeibar1 wrote: »All of that anti-brit cr@p is still believed as gospel by most, particularly by those in the USA. Chicago Joe spoke about looting and rape, which is another bit of daft folklore and is why I questioned him – rape as a weapon of war was never used in Ireland by any side and I still await his source.
Of course it was! There were many depredations committed in various wars in Ireland, rape being the least of them. Regarding 1798, the Yeoman and their followers committed hideous crimes, among them torture, massacre and indeed rape. I find your claim regarding rape quite incredible to be honest.
Read any account of '98 and you'll come across such accounts, particularly in Wexford prior to the outbreak. Again, rape was the least of their terrorist activities. Thomas Packenham's "The year of Liberty" is the best work I've yet to read on the subject.
Regarding Ireton, I don't know why you've singled him out. There were huge depredations carried out by British armies throughout those wars, countless times where surrendered garrisons were massacred and thousands of civilians killed as a result of various tactics.
Can you for even one moment be serious in trying to deny such obvious facts?
You hardly need me to go digging up loads of references for you regarding events that I would expect someone on a history forum to already be acquainted with?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
pedroeibar1 wrote: »There was no cohesive national army or means of enforcing a national legal system or national trade rules - the basis of a structured society
How many "Nations" can you point to in that era that had what you're describing?pedroeibar1 wrote: »Shows your depth of reading, nothing I can do about that. Read more, try to spread your research over conflicting sources and compare them.
No, I meant you just pulled Parnell and something about Queen Victoria's money out of nowhere. It was and is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, almost as much as Ireton!pedroeibar1 wrote: »‘The least of their terrorist activities’ Rather confusing language. Give me one authoritative source where rape was used as a weapon of war in 1798.
I don't see what's confusing about it. If you'd read anything about 1798 that language wouldn't confuse you one iota.
Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it. If you'd read anything about the time you'd know about the terrorising of the people, largely peasantry, by Government forces. I gave you the title of one book where this is documented (various depredations including rape, but rape being one of the more lenient techniques), any other detailed history of the period should suffice also. Again, I'm surprised you're not aware of the campaign of terror against the populace at that time.pedroeibar1 wrote: »they were committed by both sides, and Irish = good and English = bad is a load of BS.
Indeed they were but I think the elephant in the room is that the English soldiers were committing atrocities in Ireland. There's no cases of Irish soldiers attempting to put an English rebellion down in England and committing atrocities over there.pedroeibar1 wrote: »Not loads, but if you find just one acceptable reference it would be good ..... I’d expect anyone who claims mass rape in 1798 or any other period to substantiate their claims. Please do so.
Now you're telling Porkies Pedro. I never claimed there was "mass" anything. Please stick to what I said. I said rape, along with far worse methods, was indeed used by Government forces in 1798, particularly before the rebellion even broke out. Pitch-capping was much more popular though, given that it would likely extract information out of the victim.
I'm not going to go digging out all the books I read and find the chapters, nor am I inclined to go Googling something that should be fairly obvious to a history bloke like yourself. Check out the book I mentioned and another one that comes to mind is one called "The people's rising". Can't remember who wrote it.
Pedro, Chicago Joe might have been onto something more than you'd like to know 0 -
-
Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.How many "Nations" can you point to in that era that had what you're describing?
The 1798 Rebellion was plotted/initiated and broke out in Dublin, when some from the working class tried to take Dublin Castle and then went home rather quickly. The 'Rising' was a result of the influence of the ‘French citizens’ and revolutionary France and there was no ‘goading’ by yeomen or militia.Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it. If you'd read anything about the time you'd know about the terrorising of the people, largely peasantry, by Government forces.
Equally poor is your knowledge of the militias and their use. The Wexford Militia was not raised until 1793. It was created in response to the Napoleonic scare because the English army presence in Ireland was very small. The militias were manned by local volunteers, recruited mainly from the Protestant middle class but had many Catholics in the ranks and were led by the nobility or gentry, who initially paid the militia at their own expense. They were part-time soldiers, their role was to defend the Irish coast and your suggestion that “Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it.” is total nonsense.
Total non-seq. What has that got to do with the topic?There's no cases of Irish soldiers attempting to put an English rebellion down in England and committing atrocities over there.
Vague passing reference to a single book is not a source. (and “coincidentally” both titles you mention are the ones on the wiki article on the topic.……. I said rape, along with far worse methods, was indeed used by Government forces in 1798, particularly before the rebellion even broke out. Pitch-capping was much more popular though, given that it would likely extract information out of the victim. ……… I'm not going to go digging out all the books I read and find the chapters, nor am I inclined to go Googling something that should be fairly obvious to a history bloke like yourself. Check out the book I mentioned and another one that comes to mind is one called "The people's rising". Can't remember who wrote it.
)
Pitchcapping (and worse) came into use during / after the Rebellion, not before.
Again you have failed to provide a valid source for your claims – you will find it very difficult to do so as almost uniquely to Ireland rape was uncommon in that period. There were instances, but they were few, and not confined to one side if you bother to research it. Most of the claims of rape in 1798 stem from politicised accounts written in a much later period e.g. Harwood in 1844. Similarly the centenary celebrations were less about the commemoration of battles/dead and were used more as a rallying mechanism for nationalism. Or, as Qualitymark says, Propaganda.
With that level of argument there is little point in a discussion.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »The 1798 Rebellion was plotted/initiated and broke out in Dublin, when some from the working class tried to take Dublin Castle and then went home rather quickly. The 'Rising' was a result of the influence of the ‘French citizens’ and revolutionary France and there was no ‘goading’ by yeomen or militia.
Equally poor is your knowledge of the militias and their use. The Wexford Militia was not raised until 1793. It was created in response to the Napoleonic scare because the English army presence in Ireland was very small. The militias were manned by local volunteers, recruited mainly from the Protestant middle class but had many Catholics in the ranks and were led by the nobility or gentry, who initially paid the militia at their own expense. They were part-time soldiers, their role was to defend the Irish coast and your suggestion that “Prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, the Yeoman and Militia tortured, killed and indeed raped in order to force the people into open rebellion so they could then crush it.” is total nonsense.
I'm sorry but you're totally wrong there. Have you ever read a single book about the Rebellion? Pitch-capping and other forms of torture were used extensively in order to extract information and flush an inevitable rebellion out into the open. Pakenham stated that the Government as high as William Pitt himself urged such tactics for that specific reason. Yet you're calling this "complete nonsense"? Again, have you read about this subject at all?
Once again, you've gone off on an irrelevant tangent talking about how the Militias were formed. I'm well aware of that and I don't know (a) why you thought I wasn't and (b) what on earth that has to do with what the Yeoman and Militias did prior to and during 1798?
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Vague passing reference to a single book is not a source. (and “coincidentally” both titles you mention are the ones on the wiki article on the topic. )Pitchcapping (and worse) came into use during / after the Rebellion, not before.
I've never looked at a wiki article on this subject. No need to considering the books I've read but if you're trying to suggest that I've gone to wiki in order to give you a link to a couple of books, then that's pretty weak (you'd think I'd have given you the Author's name of the second book for a start :rolleyes:).
Incidentally, does the wiki article reference any pre-rebellion Government torture/terrorism? If it references those books it might do.
Your total ignorance of the subject is extraordinary regarding the use of torture prior to the rebellion. Pitch-capping was not used prior to the outbreak? Are you for real???pedroeibar1 wrote: »Again you have failed to provide a valid source for your claims – you will find it very difficult to do so as almost uniquely to Ireland rape was uncommon in that period. There were instances, but they were few, and not confined to one side if you bother to research it. Most of the claims of rape in 1798 stem from politicised accounts written in a much later period e.g. Harwood in 1844. Similarly the centenary celebrations were less about the commemoration of battles/dead and were used more as a rallying mechanism for nationalism. Or, as Qualitymark says, Propaganda.With that level of argument and your lack of knowledge there is little point in a discussion.
My suspicions about you when you went at Chicago Joe have been proven correct. Its actually you who's caught up in propaganda, the loyalist/pro-British kind. I can only presume that despite your Spanish sounding username that you're English or more likely, an Ulster Unionist, such is the denial of a fairly obvious and well-known piece of Irish history. Would I be correct in that assumption?
Far far worse than rape occurred but I recall an account in Packenham's book (a Protestant member of the Anglo-Irish gentry btw, so the "nationalist propaganda" excuse can't be leveled at him) of a member of the Yeoman in Wexford saying something along the lines of: The Irish rebels are very fit, requiring many slashes of the sword to cut them down......To be fair to the rogues, tell me a man who wouldn't run red with rage when he sees his wife's petticoat being torn open?
If I'm so inclined, I'll read the bloody book over again and come back to you with all these references but it really shouldn't be necessary if you knew anything about the period at all, Pedro. Though I think, like I mentioned above, there might be an ulterior motive for your denial of historical factpedroeibar1 wrote: »Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.
You've quite a disparaging way of referring to Ireland of this time. Are you not aware of the period long before this when Ireland was a center for learning and manuscript making when Britain was struggling through the Dark Ages?
The Beeb did a decent Docu about it once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxzM_Y0cYJA
Such remarks do lead me to suspect your background and perhaps a bit of "The Irish were just a pack of savages" brainwashing having been drummed into you at some point 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Take your pick from England, Scotland, France, Burgundy, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Bohemia, Sweden, Norway, (& lots more too, bigger or smaller than Ireland, centrally ruled and more cohesive.) Their people were far more interested in developing nation states rather than cattle-raiding.
I don't think "Nation-state" is relevant to early medieval period tbh, it's more appropriate in the context of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.
It's quite evident from the 12th century that Ireland was in the "proto-feudal" phase about 100-150 years behind the likes of England and France. However as was evident during the period feudalism over time actually led to decentralisation of power out from "monarchy" the prime example been what happened in the "Holy Roman Empire" after the Investiture Controversy in the late 11th century. Burgundy is another interesting example as it was technically part of the Kingdom of France. One could only say that the likes of France and England truly became centralised monarchies from the 15th century onwards. (Henry VII basically ended private baronial armies through clever use of tax)
This "proto-feudalism" in Ireland can be see this with the adaption of the Trícha Cét as a system of land division based on military levies as well as the appearance of a diocesan system based on the realignment of church with mainland european system.
If anything it was quite comparable to most other parts of Europe (Scandinavia and Scotland for example) at the time, the arrival of the Cambro-Normans of course introduced a centrifugal force into the whole proceedings.
As for Nation building that's not an issue of the 12th century the syncretic historians had already completed the process of Nation building in the 8th century, along with the rewriting of Irish history at that time.
With regards to "Cattle raiding" well the English had no problem carrying out Chevauchée during the hundred year war and that's in the mid 14th century. What's good for the goose is surely good enough for the gander 0 -
-
-
I don't think "Nation-state" is relevant to early medieval period tbh, it's more appropriate in the context of Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.
It's quite evident from the 12th century that Ireland was in the "proto-feudal" phase about 100-150 years behind the likes of England and France. However as was evident during the period feudalism over time actually led to decentralisation of power out from "monarchy" the prime example been what happened in the "Holy Roman Empire" after the Investiture Controversy in the late 11th century. Burgundy is another interesting example as it was technically part of the Kingdom of France. One could only say that the likes of France and England truly became centralised monarchies from the 15th century onwards. (Henry VII basically ended private baronial armies through clever use of tax)
This "proto-feudalism" in Ireland can be see this with the adaption of the Trícha Cét as a system of land division based on military levies as well as the appearance of a diocesan system based on the realignment of church with mainland european system.
If anything it was quite comparable to most other parts of Europe (Scandinavia and Scotland for example) at the time, the arrival of the Cambro-Normans of course introduced a centrifugal force into the whole proceedings.
As for Nation building that's not an issue of the 12th century the syncretic historians had already completed the process of Nation building in the 8th century, along with the rewriting of Irish history at that time.
With regards to "Cattle raiding" well the English had no problem carrying out Chevauchée during the hundred year war and that's in the mid 14th century. What's good for the goose is surely good enough for the gander
Interesting, I get your drift. However, to get a place at the “table/s” for the Westphalia business surely the delegates had to be a recognized as “states”? Also, the Dutch "conglomeration", Portugese and Spanish were "nations" a century before the Peace of Westphalia, had developed economies and had expanded overseas with colonies - France tried but failed. We were a small troublesome island with little going for us other than some fertile land and as a good location from which to weaken/attack England.
The point I made was that Ireland was not a nation – the battle of Clontarf saw ‘Irish’ (if you include Dublin’s Danes) fighting under a very temporary sort of High King. The Normans succeeded largely because of enmity between the Irish petty kings; by the Elizabethan era (and calling all the Fitz’s and Butlers Irish) there was constant internecine strife, e.g. Ormonde and Desmond invariably were at each other’s throats and wreaking havoc, and when Carew arrived rather than fight him in a combined way many of the locals joined him to gain some advantage (the Cavanaghs come to mind). That is why I cannot see how Ireland could fit the description of nationhood ……
Nor am I convinced that the chevauchee is directly comparable to the “creach”, the former being more a guerrilla-type strategy to weaken an enemy whereas the latter was a mixture of profit, high jinx and doing the neighbour one in the eye? That era is outside my comfort zone, so I’m open to correction.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement