LordSutch wrote: » The thing is, when you see what the rebels did, from the execution (murder) of the 1st policeman outside Dublin castle, The 1st World War mentality "of the time" would have been to execute traitors I guess?
LordSutch wrote: The rebels are coming across as psychopathic murderers who had little sway with the public at large. No wonder they are verbally abused by the public as their shambles ended and they are led away...
LordSutch wrote: That poor unarmed policeman at the start! Anyone know who shot him?
LordSutch wrote: » Surely that's how they would been seen as at the time! You can even see the hostile attitude from Dubliners towards the rebels in the drama. The actions of the rebels is fairly ruthless and not in tune with Irish society. It was only after the drip drip feed of their executions that they became heroes, several years later.
Strazdas wrote: » Thought that was a brilliant episode myself. It illustrated how chaotic that opening day of the Rising was. Good to see that the rebels are being shown in a very even handed manner : a few fanatics and cold blooded killers in their ranks (we know for a fact that they shot innocent civilians dead at various points around the city and not just looters either). Looks like Mr Hammond's missus is well aware that he is giving May one.
josephryan1989 wrote: » Rubbish. A terrorist is not fighting for freedom so he/she by definition is not a freedom fighter. A freedom fighter likewise is not a terrorist if he/she is fighting for a just cause. Terrorists do not fight for freedom. They fight for undemocratic values. You clearly don't know anything about the 1916 Rising if you think it is terrorism to fight for democracy and liberty.
josephryan1989 wrote: » They were fighting for a free democratic republic so by definition that weren't terrorists. The British had suspended Home Rule and usurped the democratic will of the majoity. What other option was there but to rebel? How could anyone believe 1916 was an act of terrorism? Truly bizarre!
P. Breathnach wrote: » The mood started to turn in days, largely because of the executions. When the detainees were released from Frongoch (in Wales) a year later they were welcomed back in Dublin as heroes. One of the great what-ifs of Irish history is how things might have played out if the rebel leaders had not been executed in such a summary fashion.
josephryan1989 wrote: » The British had usurped the democratic will when they suspended Home Rule. What other option was there but to declare a Republic and kick the British out? What was wrong with shooting looters? Were you upset by the shhoting of the policeman at the gate? In wartime an enemy combatant is fair game of he resists. You are basically calling the man and women who fought for your freedom terrorists?
josephryan1989 wrote: » The mood changed when it emerged that British soldiers had massacred civilians by shooting and bayoneting in Dublin and the British government tried to introduce conscription. The rebel leaders were executed after a joke trials.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: I thought conscription wasn't brought in in Ireland until 1918?
Strazdas wrote: » Even in a "war" situation, the shooting of unarmed civilians may well constitute a war crime. I'm not excusing the British here by the way, they too killed a lot of civilians that week (it's not often realised but more Dublin civilians died in the Rising than rebels or British soldiers combined).
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » I thought conscription wasn't brought in in Ireland until 1918?
josephryan1989 wrote: » Martial law allows for shooting looters or people who disobey curfew. That's not a war crime. Most of the civilian dead were killed by shelling or when they ventured out and were hit by stray bullets during firefights.
LordSutch wrote: » In the context of the RTE drama, the rebels seemed totally out of kilter with the mood of the time. Just listen to the many negative comments made about them by Dubliners. The citizens of Ireland were taken by surprise, and with the worry that the Germans may be involved too! The Rebels themselves in the drama are portrayed as dreamers, radicals, and blood lusting criminals, with some innocents thrown in too. If you have any complaints about their portrayal, I suggest you email RTE.
Disgruntled Badger wrote: » Conscription was never brought in. The threat of it however was enough to galvanise shifting public opinion against British rule, much more so than the 1916 executions.
Strazdas wrote: » Ireland was well and truly a democracy in 1916. There were free elections and the Home Rule Party was the largest by far. Even Sinn Fein came to be the biggest party totally fairly and legitimately under the British electoral system.
josephryan1989 wrote: The mood changed when it emerged that British soldiers had massacred civilians by shooting and bayoneting in Dublin and the British government tried to introduce conscription. The rebel leaders were executed after a joke trials.
josephryan1989 wrote: » Did I say otherwise?
josephryan1989 wrote: » Blood lusting criminals? When was that?
LordSutch wrote: » Padraig Pearse's St Enda's bomb factory, the shooting dead of the unarmed policeman, the menacing shots fired at the fella with the beer barrel (who shouts back at them) "I hope the Brits kill all of ya", the woman shot at the barracade by the Rebels, the general threat & menace made to anyone who got in their way, the cold blooded belief that it was their will that was going to be carried out, no matter what. All in the knowledge that they would probably all die anyway! They (the rebels) don't come out in a very good light in the Drama.
josephryan1989 wrote: » Rubbish. Home Rule was repeatedly blocked denying Ireland it's own parliament and then suspended when WW1 broke out. Redmond betrayed Irish freedom when he encouraged a generation of Irishmen to die in the trenches. The British government was strong-armed by the British military who threatened mutiny by a bigoted Unionist minority and by the Tories who wanted to crush Irish separatism. The rebellion was only option left of Ireland was to be free.
Deleted User wrote: » We're a bit too quick to knock our own. Same on the love/hate thread and same on the Charlie thread. I'd say if the Wire was made in Ireland by RTE we'd still bitch about it.
crushproof wrote: » Tis no Indiana Jones :PSeriously though, after the promising first episode this was a shambles. The love triangle scenes were far too drawn out, doubt many people are watching for the soap opera aspect of it all. The roof scenes and scuffles around the castle were done well, especially the reaction of when the cop was shot - it's exactly how the young lads would have been. But the looting, taking of the GPO and other scenes were extremely amateurish. They did absolutely nothing to O'Connell Street / GPO apart from stick that feckin Oldhausen tram outside. In reality the street would have been filled with crowds, dirty with horseshít etc and all the pans of glass would have been smashed by the rebels. Instead, every shot showed a pristine GPO. And again, double yellow lines, modern street signs and cables all over the place. Where were all the extras for the looting?! And were tenement dwellers really that clean?! Doubting the rest of the series will be any good now. I don't want to hear "oh well what do you expect, it's an Irish production" - so what? Anyone could spot some of the flaws listed above. Some of the actors are putting alot of effort in, but they're let down by the lazy directing and production. Comes across as a rushed job. A real shame considering many of us had hoped for a showpiece series that could be shown abroad.
josephryan1989 wrote: Rubbish. Home Rule was repeatedly blocked denying Ireland it's own parliament and then suspended when WW1 broke out. Redmond betrayed Irish freedom when he encouraged a generation of Irishmen to die in the trenches. The British government was strong-armed by the British military who threatened mutiny by a bigoted Unionist minority and by the Tories who wanted to crush Irish separatism. The rebellion was only option left of Ireland was to be free.
Disgruntled Badger wrote: » I think you are being a little harsh on Redmond. I don't think he encouraged anyone to die. Fight would be more accurate. And it was precisely to achieve Irish 'freedom' through home rule that he did so, demonstrating to the unionists that Ireland could be United in a common goal. And there is evidence to show loyalist views did soften with strong bonds of solidarity forming in units like the 36th ulster fighting alongside southern fusilier regiments. The 1916 rebellion had the opposite effect and by 1918/19 everything had changed utterly and partition was inevitable such was the level of distrust festering in Ulster, both against an Irish parliament and of Westminster itself that they'd be sold out. Redmond's actions might have been viewed very differently if events and opinion in the south hadn't overtaken the course. He might well have been revered today as the founder of a 32 county Free State.
wp_rathead wrote: » rather enjoyed Rebellion - wish they cut out the stupid affair with the Irish girl going to stay in Dalkey with the wife - and don't understand the point of the Belfast woman suddenly turning up.. Thought they portrayed the madness of it well, the policeman getting shot was very well played out - some people who learned about the Rising through romantic rebel songs might be pissed but revolutions are bloody affairs and it is three dimensional people who are getting killed and not simply "the enemy"
KingBrian2 wrote: » Germany was not the enemy by 1916. Home Rule was 2 years expired so the time for fighting had commenced this time the face of the enemy had changed.
