That glorious time of the year again....

the rebels surrendered because they were outgunned and alot of them were dieing (chrissakes Connolly couldnt bleedin walk) and then their fortifications were burning down (due to the helga) and they were mostly overrun and disorganised.

civilian casualities would have been the least of their worries.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I consider it the greatest moment in Irish history.

I am staggered.
Either you're knowledge of Irish History is truly abysmal, or Ireland has a truly cr*p history. And I know the latter isn't true, ergo the former must be.

I salute you, oh ignorant one!
*Bows*

BlitzKrieg wrote:

the rebels surrendered because they were outgunned and alot of them were dieing (chrissakes Connolly couldnt bleedin walk) and then their fortifications were burning down (due to the helga) and they were mostly overrun and disorganised.

Pearse amde the call though and I doubt he expected a military success.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

civilian casualities would have been the least of their worries.

I disagree with that.

Sarky wrote:

No resemblance whatsoever, eh?

I don't think so. Please point out this resemblance.

SebtheBum wrote:

I am staggered.
Either you're knowledge of Irish History is truly abysmal, or Ireland has a truly cr*p history. And I know the latter isn't true, ergo the former must be.

I salute you, oh ignorant one!
*Bows*

Don't label me ignorant. I am not. I'm just not of the Kevin Myers ilk who are disgusted by their own country's history.

I'm proud of mine. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

Eh, MNG, if avoiding civilian casualties were on their list of priorities, don't you think they would've avoided attempting the Rising completely? Or at the very least, fortified themselves in areas were civilian casualties would be kept to a minimum?

Come on, they knew what they were doing, and they knew it would result in civilian casualties. Who are you kidding?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Pearse amde the call though and I doubt he expected a military success.

in reply

But the influence of blood sacrifice ideas on the leaders of the Rising can easily be overstated. Pearse was not the driving force behind it, but rather Thomas Clarke and Sean MacDermott. Both were traditional republicans – hardheaded, practical, ruthless, committed to the use of force to gain Irish independence, and convinced that war had provided them with a unique opportunity to achieve this goal. The plans which the Military Council prepared in 1915 indicate the scale of the operations which it was anticipating and the extent of its ambitions. With substantial German help, the outcome it sought and prepared for was that British military units in Ireland would be crushed and the episode culminate, not in their martyrdom, but in a rebel victory march
Events did not develop as they had hoped. At the end of the Rising, when the leaders faced certain defeat, the terms that they sought to negotiate with Britain were that they themselves would be executed and their followers allowed to go free. In practice, their blood sacrifice was not therefore a strategy calculated long in advance, but a tactic hastily improvised. It was designed, not to redeem Ireland, but to perform the practical task of saving the lives of their men

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They invaded Ireland and took the land off of the native Irish centuries beforehand..

Just thought I'd point out that this is an inaccurate and, yes, ignorant statement.

The English (Normans) were invited by the Irish King of Leinster Dermot MacMurrough to help him fight his bitter enemy Tiernan O'Rourke. When the Norman Knight and Nobleman Richard FitzGilbert de Clare (Strongbow - my ancestor btw) married MacMurrough's daughter Aoife, he became the heir to the kingdom.

In 1171, MacMurrough died, and the Kingdom of Leinster was Strongbow's.

So you see? The Anglo-Norman claim on Irish soil is as strong as yours - going by 9 centuries. Besides, you talk about the native Irish as if they were homogenous - MacMurrough (and many other Chieftains like him) hated other "Irish" warlords far more than their neighbours from Sasana.

Sarky

So, in short, it's all the Dubs' faults anyway. Bloody west brits...

the historians are out in force today!! grrrowl

SebtheBum wrote:

Eh, MNG, if avoiding civilian casualties were on their list of priorities, don't you think they would've avoided attempting the Rising completely? Or at the very least, fortified themselves in areas were civilian casualties would be kept to a minimum?

Come on, they knew what they were doing, and they knew it would result in civilian casualties. Who are you kidding?

The Rising was about taking a stand. Irishmen in British uniforms were doing it overseas already. The Rising was not about inflicting civilian casualties.

BlitzKrieg,

Pearse had believed in blood sacrifice all his life and was fascinated by the thought of dying for Ireland.

Sebthebum wrote:

Just thought I'd point out that this is an inaccurate and, yes, ignorant statement.

The English (Normans) were invited by the Irish King of Leinster Dermot MacMurrough to help him fight his bitter enemy Tiernan O'Rourke. When the Norman Knight and Nobleman Richard FitzGilbert de Clare (Strongbow - my ancestor btw) married MacMurrough's daughter Aoife, he became the heir to the kingdom

Sorry Seb but the ignorance is on your part. I never mentioned the Normans. I'm well aware they became "more Irish than the Irish themselves".

I was actually referring to events in the 16th century which would lead to the flight of the Earls and the Ulster Plantations.

BlitzKrieg,

Pearse had believed in blood sacrifice all his life and was fascinated by the thought of dying for Ireland.

reality and desire tend to differ alot
so
again...

In practice, their blood sacrifice was not therefore a strategy calculated long in advance, but a tactic hastily improvised. It was designed, not to redeem Ireland, but to perform the practical task of saving the lives of their men

BlitzKrieg,

I dont think that explains Pearse though. This is a man who when a child told his family stories of how he would be stretched out on a rack and how he would die for Ireland.

A man who was fascianted by the death of Jesus and Cuchulainn.

Read his graveside oration for O'Donovan Rossa: "Life springs from death. And from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations".

Also, as Ruth Dudley Edwards points out, unlike the others, Pearse had left a whole body of literature behind him as if in preparation for the moment when he would die.

Are you aware that when the British were about to execute the rebels, Pearse pleaded with the British to spare the others and to kill him alone?

I have read on Pearse quite a bit and find him a fascinating character and there's no doubt in my mind that he sought to be a martyr just like men such as Robert Emmet. Indeed, Pearse moved his school from St. Enda's to The Hermitage which is where Robert Emmet once lived and Pearse wrote how he could feel his presence.

Pearse believed in blood sacrifice since he was a young boy and I challenge you to provide me information which states otherwise besides the piece you quote which you do not even reference. Where is that from?

Sarky

All that proves is that Pearse was nuts. He must have considered himself so lucky to get captured and sentenced to death. Bloody attention whore.

Sarky wrote:

All that proves is that Pearse was nuts.

I'm not going to argue otherwise.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Don't label me ignorant. I am not. I'm just not of the Kevin Myers ilk who are disgusted by their own country's history.

I'm proud of mine. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

I'm very proud of irish history, i think we have one of the most amazing histories in the world, and its people like you who ruin it.

You know why? Irish history feels so real compared to other nations. I love irish history because there are mistakes and there are failures,it makes it more powerful.

go to american history they glorify their civil war into this great fight for freedom of slavery. Mention the Irish civil war, everyone shuffles their feet and feel ashamed.

So glorifying 1916 into this heroic moment destroys irish history for me. Its turning it into the Alamo or charge of the light brigade.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I'm very proud of irish history, i think we have one of the most amazing histories in the world, and its people like you who ruin it.

You know why? Irish history feels so real compared to other nations. I love irish history because there are mistakes and there are failures,it makes it more powerful.

go to american history they glorify their civil war into this great fight for freedom of slavery. Mention the Irish civil war, everyone shuffles their feet and feel ashamed.

So glorifying 1916 into this heroic moment destroys irish history for me. Its turning it into the Alamo or charge of the light brigade.

I tend to think some people wish to make us feel ashamed of our hsitory. Look at WW2. It's as if we Irish aren't allowed celebrate the Allied victory like other countries as we were not involved directly.

I tend to think some people also allow the actions of the Provisional IRA to tarnish the actions of the IRB/IRA.

Just my opinion.

muckwarrior

SebtheBum wrote:

Strongbow - my ancestor btw

Well that explains your viewpoint.
How the brits came to be here in the first place isn't important. The fact that they tortured and suppressed us for hundreds of years is! It's very easy to forget this now that we're all living comfy lives, but my great granny told me stories of the black & tans beating the **** out of her brothers and then pissing on her and her sisters. They lived in terror of the British occupiers, and for good reason too.
Thousands of people gave their lives over the centuries in a bid to free their country. And for what? For a shower of little west brit tossers to ridicule them! But I guess it doesn’t make much difference to you since it's likely that it was your ancestors doing the oppressing!

Anyway this just about sums up my views on the subject.

Pearse believed in blood sacrifice since he was a young boy and I challenge you to provide me information which states otherwise besides the piece you quote which you do not even reference. Where is that from?

i never denied he did, but it is not the prevailing or central thought of the rising, Pearse did believe in a blood sacrifice i will not deny this. But not everyone did and it was not the reason they surrendered nor was it the goal of the rising (it became the goal when everything fell apart)

the source is the bbc history site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/index.shtml if your gonna scream that its bias due to being English i can go grab you any book on the rising and it will say the same thing.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I tend to think some people wish to make us feel ashamed of our hsitory. Look at WW2. It's as if we Irish aren't allowed celebrate the Allied victory like other countries as we were not involved directly.

I tend to think some people also allow the actions of the Provisional IRA to tarnish the actions of the IRB/IRA.

Just my opinion.

ww2 ireland history is one of my favourite parts of history actually...we should be more proud of our actions in being neutral then ashamed in becoming dependent on britain once again. Also you cant help but smile at many of the little stories (DeValera p*ssing of the american foriegn diplomat and so on)

Anyway this just about sums up my views on the subject.

dear god that song is awful! who is singing it?

BlitzKrieg wrote:

i never denied he did, but it is not the prevailing or central thought of the rising, Pearse did believe in a blood sacrifice i will not deny this. But not everyone did and it was not the reason they surrendered nor was it the goal of the rising (it became the goal when everything fell apart)

the source is the bbc history site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/index.shtml if your gonna scream that its bias due to being English i can go grab you any book on the rising and it will say the same thing.

I'm know not everyone agreed with blood sacrifice but the point I'm making is that Pearse did yet he surrendered due to the blood of innocents being spilled.

I've read Michael Collins say that he did not think much of Pearse but that he ddi respect Connelly. Pearse's plan wored out from his perspective though.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

ww2 ireland history is one of my favourite parts of history actually...we should be more proud of our actions in being neutral then ashamed in becoming dependent on britain once again. Also you cant help but smile at many of the little stories (DeValera p*ssing of the american foriegn diplomat and so on

I agree. Those outside Ireland don't know how much we contributed though despite being neutral and it's a if we should be ashamed of our stance.

I agree with you about the little stories and have you read De Valera's response to Churchill's attack on Irish nuetrality after the war?

Very dignified and one of the best speeches an Irishman has ever given in my opinion.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I think you misunderstood the comment by Pearse. Considering the event triggered a resurgence in Irish nationalism, I don't think they lost.

By that rational you're also supporting terrorist bombers like the ones who blew up london. They were nuts believed that fighting itself is a victory, do you?

You know what they say about people who assume...

I don't assume, I'm making an observation based on experienced.

Yes they did. They invaded Ireland and took the land off of the native Irish centuries beforehand.

You can engage in whataboutree for decades, what someone's dad, granddad or greatgranddad did can never be used as justification of violence.

They shot back indiscriminately. That was unfair.

They shelled rebel positions, if Pearse was a true humanitarian he'd have enforced an evacuation. What were the british supposed to do response with harsh language? Pearse and his men fortfied in secure positions, standard military tactics from four years before hand, to the present day is sustained shelling of an enemy position before ground force assault is the only way to ensure significant loss of live of your own men. Pearse knew what he was doing, what else could the british do?

I disagree with that.

Nuh uh you're wrong. Care to provide the legwork to support that claim, or would that be immature?

In short never let the facts or the truth get in the way of your opinion, just stick your fingers in the air and star singing "a nation once again".

Also, as Ruth Dudley Edwards points out, unlike the others, Pearse had left a whole body of literature behind him as if in preparation for the moment when he would die.

Are you aware that when the British were about to execute the rebels, Pearse pleaded with the British to spare the others and to kill him alone?

I have read on Pearse quite a bit and find him a fascinating character and there's no doubt in my mind that he sought to be a martyr just like men such as Robert Emmet. Indeed, Pearse moved his school from St. Enda's to The Hermitage which is where Robert Emmet once lived and Pearse wrote how he could feel his presence.

So in short he's a sucide bomber but a "poetic" sucide bomber, well that makes it okay then.

mycroft wrote:

By that rational you're also supporting terrorist bombers like the ones who blew up london. They were nuts believed that fighting itself is a victory, do you?

No I do not.

mycroft wrote:

I don't assume, I'm making an observation based on experienced.

Don't backtrack. Here were your words:

"Y'know I've generally assuming that anyone who says something like "oh yeah thats real mature" is 12."

mycroft wrote:

You can engage in whataboutree for decades, what someone's dad, granddad or greatgranddad did can never be used as justification of violence.

I take it you mean 'whataboutery'? 'Whataboutree' is presumably something gardeners engage in.

mycroft wrote:

They shelled rebel positions, if Pearse was a true humanitarian he'd have enforced an evacuation. What were the british supposed to do response with harsh language? Pearse and his men fortfied in secure positions, standard military tactics from four years before hand, to the present day is sustained shelling of an enemy position before ground force assault is the only way to ensure significant loss of live of your own men. Pearse knew what he was doing, what else could the british do?

What were the British to do? Use necessary force, not excessive force.

mycroft wrote:

Nuh uh you're wrong. Care to provide the legwork to support that claim, or would that be immature?

I'm wrong? I don't think so. It's called my opinion. Just because you don't share it doesn't make it wrong. BlitzKrieg said he felt civilian casualties were the least of their (the rebel's) worries. I said I disagree. It's a viewpoint that can't be confirmed based on Pearse and co being dead for close to 90 years.

mycroft wrote:

In short never let the facts or the truth get in the way of your opinion, just stick your fingers in the air and star singing "a nation once again".

My opinions are based on fact. You just get back to reading Kevin Myer's latest piece of work. I bet you're a big fan.

mycroft wrote:

So in short he's a sucide bomber but a "poetic" sucide bomber, well that makes it okay then.

LOL. You accuse ME of ignoring truth and fact yet you portray Pearse as a suicide bomber! First time I've heard that!

I wonder how long before we hear a Nazi reference to the rebels?

Sarky

Don't be silly.

The rebels had terrible fashion sense.

I wonder how long before we hear a Nazi reference to the rebels?

wait wait wait i can do this!

the rebels included micheal collins who died in the civil war, the blueshirts were set up to honour the dead rebels specifically Arthur Griffith and Micheal Collins. And because it was the fashion trend of the time, the group adopted the brownshirt/blackshirt appearance and marching preferences, and its leader had a respect for the fascist nationalistic elements and when he tried to turn cumman nangheadhel (which became Fine Gael) into a fascist party he was given the boot.

there i did it!

i can do it again!

The Germans tried to supply arms to the rebels in 1916 but failed, they wanted to support the rising so they would draw pressure of the western front, it failed and they lost the war and the rise of the nazi's is directly linked to the defeat of germany in ww1

oooh this is fun!

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

No I do not.

Once again "nuh uh" care to justify and explain your position.

Don't backtrack. Here were your words:

"Y'know I've generally assuming that anyone who says something like "oh yeah thats real mature" is 12."

You do so much nitpicking you should be in a zoo with monkeys picking fleas out of their hair and eating them.

Fine I think you have the maturity of a 12 yo.

I take it you mean 'whataboutery'? 'Whataboutree' is presumably something gardeners engage in.

Oh look I think you dropped some straws that you were clutching at.

Care to answer the point about the rebels indifference to civilans, and the british necessity to shell rebel positions, or get pedantic about spelling of a made up word?

What were the British to do? Use necessary force, not excessive force.

And pray do tell what is necessary force?

I'm wrong? I don't think so. It's called my opinion. Just because you don't share it doesn't make it wrong. BlitzKrieg said he felt civilian casualties were the least of their (the rebel's) worries. I said I disagree. It's a viewpoint that can't be confirmed based on Pearse and co being dead for close to 90 years.

Wow it's amazing theres not an actual answer, it can be answered by the locations choosen, Connellys words, Pearse's knowledge that no support was coming, and his willingness to lie to get men on the "field of battle" his rank indifference to human life was obvious.

My opinions are based on fact. You just get back to reading Kevin Myer's latest piece of work. I bet you're a big fan.

Yet you're not bothering to support your "facts" I mean this is he best you can do a few sentences earlier

It's a viewpoint that can't be confirmed based on Pearse and co being dead for close to 90 years.

And cyncialy assuming the oppossition is just automatically on the far far side of the fence is just f*cking pathetic.

LOL. You accuse ME of ignoring truth and fact yet you portray Pearse as a suicide bomber! First time I've heard that!

I wonder how long before we hear a Nazi reference to the rebels?

Okay heres a guy who's talking about a glorious blood sacrifice, the willingness to allow people to die to support his goals and aims, that the fight and not the victory matters, and you hey sarky has a nifty quote which you can just respond with "nuh uh"

mycroft wrote:

Once again "nuh uh" care to justify and explain your position.

Unlike you I don't see parallels between Islamic terrorism and the Easter Rising.

mycroft wrote:

You do so much nitpicking you should be in a zoo with monkeys picking fleas out of their hair and eating them.

Fine I think you have the maturity of a 12 yo.

Well we can't have you distorting the facts.

mycroft wrote:

Oh look I think you dropped some straws that you were clutching at.

How's that?

mycroft wrote:

Care to answer the point about the rebels indifference to civilans, and the british necessity to shell rebel positions, or get pedantic about spelling of a made up word?

Already answered. Perhaps you ought to read my posts thoroughly before you comment?

mycroft wrote:

And pray do tell what is necessary force?

Focusing on getting the rebels as opposed to blowing up as much of the city as possible.

mycroft wrote:

Wow it's amazing theres not an actual answer, it can be answered by the locations choosen, Connellys words, Pearse's knowledge that no support was coming, and his willingness to lie to get men on the "field of battle" his rank indifference to human life was obvious.

Pearse made the call to surrender due to the loss of civilian lives.

mycroft wrote:

Yet you're not bothering to support your "facts" I mean this is he best you can do a few sentences earlier

I have supported my facts. You want evidence for my opinion on what was going through the mind of a man who is now dead. That's a bit hard to prove. I believe Pearse was primarily concerned with going down in history like his idols Tone and Emmet but I can't necessarily prove that. It's my opinion, based on the facts put before me.

mycroft wrote:

And cyncialy assuming the oppossition is just automatically on the far far side of the fence is just f*cking pathetic.

I don't understand what you feel is so pathetic. And there's no need for vulgar language in this discussion.

mycroft wrote:

Okay heres a guy who's talking about a glorious blood sacrifice, the willingness to allow people to die to support his goals and aims, that the fight and not the victory matters, and you hey sarky has a nifty quote which you can just respond with "nuh uh"

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. It starts off like it's going somewhere and ends up as, well, God knows what?

Well this is gonna be my last post on the subject so...

I think you're wrong Mr. Nice Guy.

I think you're wrong about the Rebels' willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocent Dubs in order to further their own political objectives - they intended to seize buildings in Dublin and then ride out a seige. They KNEW they would be shelled and they KNEW there would be civilian casualties. They surrendered because they were battered and militarily outfought. No More, No Less. Why rewrite the facts?

I think you're wrong about the Brits "blowing up as much of the city as possible." Seriously, cop on. As far as they were concerned it was a British city. Why would they focus on "blowing up as much of the city as possible." To what possible end could that achieve? The British military forces that April were human beings, not mindless killing machines - they targeted the Rebel positions as best they could, bearing in mind that these positions were deliberately situated in BUAs, making targeting exceptionally difficult.

You're certainly wrong about Pearse surrendering to save civilian lives. He believed in spilling blood to accomplish political ideological objectives, and as you so rightly pointed out about his character, he believed in "blood sacrifice all his life and was fascinated by the thought of dying for Ireland." What you fail to mention is that he also believed his fellow countrymen should share this viewpoint, and if they didn't, should be awoken to it - seeing Dubs die during April 1916 would have been precisely the wake up call he wanted for his Irish compatriots.

Now, I know you from the UCD boards, and you seem a sound bloke, so I'm just gonna sign off calling this a difference of opinion. Both BlitzKrieg and, to a lesser extent, mycroft have made the arguments that I agree with. But I'm tired and there are wolves after me, so I must away. Nice debatin with ya guys... Must do this again sometime :cool: