1916 rising

Bob Z

What were the different attitudes to the 1916 rising at the time?
Who was for it and who was against it? Even from a tactical point of view within the Republican movement. What did the general public feel about it? We're there irish soldiers in tbe british army fighting the rebels?

4ensic15

Bob Z wrote: »

What were the different attitudes to the 1916 rising at the time?
Who was for it and who was against it? Even from a tactical point of view within the Republican movement. What did the general public feel about it? We're there irish soldiers in tbe british army fighting the rebels?

Those who supported it were for it and those who opposed it were against it. the general public were either for it or against it. There was no Irish army so therefore there were no Irish soldiers.

Ascendant

Bob Z wrote: »

We're there irish soldiers in tbe british army fighting the rebels?

This OP is too broad to deal with in one reply but to answer the last question: Yes.

Easter Rising 1916 & Royal Dublin Fusiliers

The 10th Battalion Royal Dublin fusiliers were training at the Royal barracks in Dublin when the Easter Rising broke on Monday 24 April. They were involved in relieving Dublin Castle, and later in helping clear various buildings including the Mendocity Institute

...

Capt Henry De Courcey-Wheeler of the Dublins (Heroic Option by Bowen), an Irishman from Co Kildare, took the surrender of rebels in the Royal College of Surgeons where Countess Markievicz was second in command "So small was the Ascendency World that he was connected to Constace through marriage." I have not found his Battalion.


John Dillon, the Irish Party MP who was in Dublin during Easter week and witnessed events there, told the House of Commons:

I asked Sir John Maxwell himself, “Have you any cause of complaint of the Dublins [the Royal Dublin Fusiliers] who had to go down and fight their own people in the streets of Dublin? Did a single man turn back and betray the uniform he wears?” He told me, “Not a man.

CWGC details 2 officers and 10 Other Ranks killed, and contemporary reports give 6 officers and 28 ORs wounded.

feargale

4ensic15 wrote: »

There was no Irish army so therefore there were no Irish soldiers.

That's a silly assertion. Some 50,000 Irish soldiers served in the Great War.

Btw, the Easter Rising was supported by a very small minority of Irish people. McNeill's Volunteers were a minority breakaway section of Redmond's Volunteers ( who constututed a large chunk of the Irish fighting in the Great War,) and a minority of McNeill's faction staged a coup against McNeill to start the Rising. So, the Rising had the support of a minority of a minority.

Bob Z

Would I be right in saying the people behind the easter rising wanted to achieve their aims and only got support hrough failing and martyrdom?

Bob Z

I'm doing a short play about and don't know enough about

4ensic15

feargale wrote: »

That's a silly assertion. Some 50,000 Irish soldiers served in the Great War.

.

The were British soldiers. Being Irish born does not make them Irish soldiers.

jonniebgood1

4ensic15 wrote: »

The were British soldiers. Being Irish born does not make them Irish soldiers.

your posts are either open to ridicule (ridiculous) or trolling. because I'm not sure which ill let them pass for the moment, however if you continue with this type of bull you may change this lack of action.

moderator

Ascendant

feargale wrote: »

So, the Rising had the support of a minority of a minority.

A conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy, to quote the late Professor F.X. Martin (writing in 1966, I think, in time for the 50th anniversary).

Bob Z

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

your posts are either open to ridicule (ridiculous) or trolling. because I'm not sure which ill let them pass for the moment, however if you continue with this type of bull you may change this lack of action.

moderator

Actually I might use his line in my play so don't

Ascendant

Bob Z wrote: »

Would I be right in saying the people behind the easter rising wanted to achieve their aims and only got support hrough failing and martyrdom?

People's immediate reactions at the time were rather contradictory, so it's hard to speculate on what the general viewpoint would have been had Clarke and co. been successful (not an implausible what-if, particularly if the Rising had been countrywide, as originally conceived, and not just restricted to Dublin and a few other places).

What in part allowed the majority of (Nationalist - the 6 NI counties were their own world for the most part) people in Ireland to retrospectively support the Rising so soon after its defeat was the limits of the damage it caused, i.e. to Dublin. It was perhaps easy for people to glorify in something that had not really affected them.

Contrast the militant mood in the 1918 general election that saw Sinn Féin sweep the seats and the 1922 one, after 2 and a half years of guerilla warfare, that saw more moderate approach, i.e. pro-Treaty, endorsed by the electorate.

Having said that, there were some genuine admiration for the courage and daring of the Rising participants, best expressed by John Dillon MP (who had been trapped in his house in Dublin during the Rising and was hardly a fan of it otherwise):

John Dillon savages British government response to Rising

‘[Rebels showed] conduct beyond reproach as fighting men. I admit they were wrong; I know they were wrong; but they fought a clean fight, and they fought with superb bravery and skill, and no act of savagery or act against the usual customs of war that I know of has been brought home to any leader or any organised body of insurgents.’

feargale

Bob Z wrote: »

Who was for it and who was against it? Even from a tactical point of view within the Republican movement. What did the general public feel about it?

Just about every Irish person was against it apart from those involved and a few around the country who wanted to be involved but were unable to be, and some of their relatives. The post-rising executions by the British repelled alot of people and made them more sympathetic to the rebels. The Irish Parliamentary Party and the Catholic bishops in the main condemned the Rising, but also condemned the executions with equal vehemence. However the single greatest turning point, that which delivered a resounding electoral victory to Sinn Fein in 1918 was with little doubt the expressed intention of the British government to extend conscription to Ireland.

Bob Z wrote: »

We're there irish soldiers in the british army fighting the rebels?

There were indeed. I don't know how many or what percentage. But a considerable portion of the British forces garrisoning Ireland was always Irish, including of course Ulster Protestants.
A relative of my OH was with a regiment involved in putting down the Rising in Dublin.

dmcc20178

Just because the Irish Republican Army and the Irish Republican Brotherhood were not recognized as armies, they still counted themselves as an army, hence the name The Irish Republican Army. But, I would imagine that there were more than likely some Irish people who were opposed the rebellion. And as for Irish people joining the British Army, well I can only presume that there were some people in Ireland who joined the British Army and I would imagine that if they were given an order by their commanding officer to fight against the Irish, then they would have to or else they would face a court marshal and might even have been charged with treason.

Jesus.

feargale wrote: »

That's a silly assertion. Some 50,000 Irish soldiers served in the Great War.

There were a hell of a lot more than that. I think you mean there were 50k killed.

feargale

Jesus. wrote: »

There were a hell of a lot more than that. I think you mean there were 50k killed.

Sorry. You're quite right.

laoch na mona

feargale wrote: »

Just about every Irish person was against it apart from those involved and a few around the country who wanted to be involved but were unable to be, and some of their relatives. The post-rising executions by the British repelled alot of people and made them more sympathetic to the rebels. The Irish Parliamentary Party and the Catholic bishops in the main condemned the Rising, but also condemned the executions with equal vehemence. However the single greatest turning point, that which delivered a resounding electoral victory to Sinn Fein in 1918 was with little doubt the expressed intention of the British government to extend conscription to Ireland.

At the 1916 Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress conference there was a considered effort from the leadership to recognise both sides sacrifice and loss in the rising, this would suggest that among the working class there was some support are at least ambivalence towards the rising

Ascendant

dmcc20178 wrote: »

And as for Irish people joining the British Army, well I can only presume that there were some people in Ireland who joined the British Army and I would imagine that if they were given an order by their commanding officer to fight against the Irish, then they would have to or else they would face a court marshal and might even have been charged with treason.

The likes of Tom Barry, Emmet Dalton and Pat Mulcahy (brother of Richard) served in the British Army and later played prominent positions of the IRA (though after leaving the British Army, though the issue of disobeying orders didn't come up).

On the other spectrum, we had the RIC, consisting of Irishmen, who provided the first line of defence (and offence) by the Crown against the IRA (as they had against previous separatist groups) and were targeted accordingly.

It was, as they say, complicated.

Jesus.

Ascendant please place an "O" before "IRA" so as to make sure its distinguishable from the more recent versions.
















(If you deem it necessary place an "*" beside it and denote at the bottom that it means "old" and not "official")

Ascendant

Jesus. wrote: »

Ascendant please place an "O" before "IRA" so as to make sure its distinguishable from the more recent versions.

Isn't it clear from the context?

After all, this is a 1916 thread, not a Troubles one.

Dr.Nightdub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Those who supported it were for it and those who opposed it were against it. the general public were either for it or against it. There was no Irish army so therefore there were no Irish soldiers.

Between the 10th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 3rd Royal Irish Regiment and 3rd Royal Irish Rifles, there were more Irish men in British uniform during Easter week 1916 fighting to suppress the Republic than there were Irish men in the Volunteers or Citizen Army fighting to uphold it.

Bob Z

i know they had to follow orders but was there any reluctance on the part of the volunteers to fire on irish soldiers? or vice versa? were people firing on people they knew personally?

Jesus.

Bob Z wrote: »

i know they had to follow orders but was there any reluctance on the part of the volunteers to fire on irish soldiers? or vice versa?

Doubt it.

Del.Monte

Bob Z wrote: »

I'm doing a short play about and don't know enough about

Why not buy a good book about the Rising if you're serious about doing a play about it? I can't imagine why you would wish to do such a play given that you obviously know next to nothing about the subject.

Bob Z

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why not buy a good book about the Rising if you're serious about doing a play about it? I can't imagine why you would wish to do such a play given that you obviously know next to nothing about the subject.

The The play The play is already written I'm expanding it I know a lot more now


The other thing is I don't really know what I'm looking for just random snippets

pedroeibar1

Bob Z wrote: »

The The play The play is already written I'm expanding it I know a lot more now


The other thing is I don't really know what I'm looking for just random snippets

A play by a writer who has no idea about 1916, one who looks here post facto for 'information', one who admits that after a few responses 'I know a lot more'. That really sums up where this forum has gone. We are half way through History week, nobody has yet mentioned it and the most active thread is this dross.

Ascendant

Bob Z wrote: »

i know they had to follow orders but was there any reluctance on the part of the volunteers to fire on irish soldiers?

Probably not but then, if you were in the middle of a warzone with bullets flying everything, would you concern yourself overly with the nationality of your enemy?

Bob Z

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

A play by a writer who has no idea about 1916, one who looks here post facto for 'information', one who admits that after a few responses 'I know a lot more'. That really sums up where this forum has gone. We are half way through History week, nobody has yet mentioned it and the most active thread is this dross.

I'm doing research in other places too by reading and asking people. You don't have to read the thread

Del.Monte

Bob Z wrote: »

I'm doing research in other places too by reading and asking people. You don't have to read the thread

Here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101191385#post101191385 :rolleyes:

Bob Z

Bob Z wrote: »

i know they had to follow orders but was there any reluctance on the part of the volunteers to fire on irish soldiers?

Let's not dress up the chosen reality and loyalties of these Irish-born people: if they chose to wear British state military uniforms they were clearly British soldiers, not Irish soldiers. To take the most clichéd example, Tom Barry was a British soldier in WW I, not an Irish soldier. Likewise with every other nationality that joined that state's army. Tom Barry only became an Irish soldier when he fought for an Irish Army.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's not dress up the chosen reality and loyalties of these Irish-born people: if they chose to wear British state military uniforms they were clearly British soldiers, not Irish soldiers.

They were Irish because they were born in Ireland, and soldiers because they were paid to be in the army by the government of the time. They were Irish soldiers in the army of these islands, called the British army.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

They were Irish soldiers in the army of these islands, called the British army.

In the same way to its apologists the German army was "the army of France" after its occupation of that country in 1940, yes. They were British soldiers who fought for, were paid by, and took an oath of loyalty to, that British state. For your usual unionist political reasons you can distort this reality all you like but the only Irish soldiers in Dublin in 1916 were fighting against that army of occupation. These people. End of.

maryishere

Yes, "the army of France" included people not from the French mainland eg people from Corsica. The Corsican soldiers who fought down through the centuries were part of the French army, just the same as Tasmanians were part of the Australian army, Sicilians were part of the Italian army etc.
Soldiers were paid by the government of the day, as part of government spending...they also built hospitals, roads, legal system, railways, harbours, lighthouses, canals, fine public buildings etc.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Between the 10th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, 3rd Royal Irish Regiment and 3rd Royal Irish Rifles, there were more Irish men in British uniform during Easter week 1916 fighting to suppress the Republic than there were Irish men in the Volunteers or Citizen Army fighting to uphold it.

Correct.