nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

1916: Why St. Stephen's Green?

OU812

One thing that's always bugged me and I could never find an answer for.

Why take over the green? Who's call was that? Strategically there's no benefit, you've effectively put yourself in a pit where you can be surrounded and fired on from a height from all sides.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fryup

they fancied a bit of fresh air??

ted1

They wanted to take control of DART underground and as Stephens green was going to be the Main station they thought they'd get in early

[Deleted User]

Control the swans and you control the capital

rsh118

IRC they wanted the Shelbourne, freaked out and then decided the green would be a great place to inhabit.

One of the worst decisions of the rising! Right up there with running away from Dublin Castle.

andekwarhola

No oppressing army in their right mind would try and charge those toilets in the days before chemical suits.

martinedwards

the 1916 uprising had many questionable decisions.

while it may have triggered the later independence, it's list of failures is longer than it's list of successes.

letsseehere14

Mentioned on rte radio 1 just there that they took Stephens green to prevent reinforcements getting into the city centre from the south. It had the same strategic value as taking the four courts, to prevent reinforcements entering along the river.
They didn't take the high buildings surrounding it as they could not do the job at hand from there. Instead they dug apparently very good trenches and dug in. But there was a reason for it. Heard all this off a historian in rte radio 1 this morning so I'm open to correction.

A Dub in Glasgo

Taking Stephens Green was a fine strategy if the IV actually turned out and provided enough men to take the surrounding buildings as well. The biggest mistake was to leave the Shelbourne for the British Army to set up their machine guns. The rebels were sitting ducks at that point

Edit: The ICA were chosen to take the Green under the command of Michael Mallin

Rabo Karabekian

martinedwards wrote: »

the 1916 uprising had many questionable decisions.

while it may have triggered the later independence, it's list of failures is longer than it's list of successes.

Was the end goal of the Rising to overthrow British rule in Ireland? I mean, were the primary people involved genuinely convinced that it stood a chance? I've heard it say that it was more an attempt to 'get the ball rolling' but no idea if that's revisionism/hindsight.

[Deleted User]

Hmmm, trying to spot tactical mistakes in the rising... anyone got a barrel of fish handy?

RobbingBandit

They wanted to set up a hedge school for the afternoon.

letsseehere14

Deleted User wrote:

Hmmm, trying to spot tactical mistakes in the rising... anyone got a barrel of fish handy?

If you want to spot easy tactical mistakes look no further than the actions taken during WW1 where multiples of more Irish men died for nothing.

Cathy.C

So close to Coppers.

randy hickey

It was a bonkers decision.

I mean, who the hell in their right mind would make the decision to take up positions in a piece of ground overlooked on all four sides, not one of which was occupied by rebels.
The outcome was predictable before they ever set foot inside Stephen's Green.

As Michael Collins said later of the rising, it was a greek tragedy.

Strazdas

randy hickey wrote: »

It was a bonkers decision.

I mean, who the hell in their right mind would make the decision to take up positions in a piece of ground overlooked on all four sides, not one of which was occupied by rebels.
The outcome was predictable before they ever set foot inside Stephen's Green.

As Michael Collins said later of the rising, it was a greek tragedy.

The decision not to take Dublin Castle was a huge mistake as well, that would have been an enormous propaganda coup.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

The decision not to take Dublin Castle was a huge mistake as well, that would have been an enormous propaganda coup.

They did decide to take it, the attempt failed though.

The Stephen's Green fiasco is all the more strange when you consider that the man in charge, Malin, had served in the British army for quite some time and perhaps should have known better. Of course British tactics at Mount Street were even more disastrous for the troops involved. It should be said though that urban warfare was a very new thing at this stage, and is always incredibly tough and dangerous, fast 80 years and basic disastrous mistakes were still being made in Grozny

diomed

To stop the Brits renaming it Boxing Day Green?

LordSutch

I often hear great plaudits being heaped upon Countess Markievicz for her part in the 1916 Rising, but I also heard an account the other day on the radio of how she shot dead an unarmed policeman in Stephens Green.

Can this be true? and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?

A Dub in Glasgo

LordSutch wrote: »

I often hear great plaudits being heaped upon Countess Markievicz for her part in the 1916 Rising, but I also heard an account the other day on the radio of how she shot dead an unarmed policeman in Stephens Green.

Can this be true? and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?

There is doubt as to whether Markievicz shot Lahiff but what is certain it was the ICA that shot him. There is no real evidence that Markievicz shot him

[Deleted User]

LordSutch wrote: »

I often hear great plaudits being heaped upon Countess Markievicz for her part in the 1916 Rising, but I also heard an account the other day on the radio of how she shot dead an unarmed policeman in Stephens Green.

Can this be true? and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?

There is a thread about it on the history forum, my opinion is that the evidence is contradictory, or hearsay and not enough to prove guilt, but you can of course make up your own mind

maryishere

LordSutch wrote: »

I often hear great plaudits being heaped upon Countess Markievicz for her part in the 1916 Rising, but I also heard an account the other day on the radio of how she shot dead an unarmed policeman in Stephens Green.

Can this be true? and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?

That part of her past is not discussed very much by Republicans, because he was an unarmed constable originally for Co. Clare. She kissed her revolved before she surrendered it to British army, other witnesses such as a nurse Fitzgerald saw her shooting the unarmed constable and in subsequent years she apologised for shooting the unarmed constable. She even went to apologise to his family but they attacked her and tore bit of her skirt off! There was a bit on RTE about it last week in fairness, it interviewed people and showed his grave in Co. Clare etc.

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/6992140/Was-Countess-Markievicz-a-hero-or-a-cold-blooded-killer.html

uck51js9zml2yt

I was listening to a piece on it last night.
The leaders of that squad had all been involved in the war in Europe and were just back , hence the use of trenches.
Its was possibly one of the worst spots to choose with all the high buildings around it givingvthe British a perfect spot to shoot the rebels.

Antar Bolaeisk

martinedwards wrote: »

the 1916 uprising had many questionable decisions.

while it may have triggered the later independence, it's list of failures is longer than it's list of successes.

Much of it's subsequent success was probably down to it being such a failure.

LordSutch

maryishere wrote: »

That part of her past is not discussed very much by Republicans, because he was an unarmed constable originally from Co. Clare. She kissed her revolver before she surrendered it to British army, other witnesses such as a nurse Fitzgerald saw her shooting the unarmed constable and in subsequent years she apologised for shooting the unarmed constable. She even went to apologise to his family but they attacked her and tore bit of her skirt off! There was a bit on RTE about it last week in fairness, it interviewed people and showed his grave in Co. Clare etc.

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/6992140/Was-Countess-Markievicz-a-hero-or-a-cold-blooded-killer.html

...which leads me to may last question "and if true, should she be held in such high esteem"?

By shooting an unarmed Irish policeman dead, had she not comitted murder?

murpho999

LordSutch wrote: »

...which leads me to may last question "and if true, should she be held in such high esteem"?

By shooting an unarmed Irish policeman dead, had she not committed murder?

Are you saying if he was armed then it's not murder?

Is soldiers killing each other not murder?

Also, police representing the British would be legitimate enemy.

[Deleted User]

LordSutch wrote: »

...which leads me to may last question "and if true, should she be held in such high esteem"?

By shooting an unarmed Irish policeman dead, had she not comitted murder?

Did you read the thread in the history forum?

Here is the pertinent info anyway, sunday indo

But it is the matter of the constable's death at St Stephen's Green on Easter Monday that most commonly now excuses her vilification. There are at least three versions in circulation. I think it's true to say that most of her detractors know next to nothing about the facts; and the few who do prefer to ignore them.-
This has proven to be especially true
The constable was Constable Lahiff, shot, according to the official report by the DMP - the Dublin Metropolitan Police - at 12pm or thereabouts, as the rebels were taking possession of the Green via the Fusilier's Gate. At this time Markievicz was at City Hall, delivering Dr Kathleeen Lynn, who was chief medical officer of the revolution, to her post. By the time Markievicz arrived at the Green in Dr Lynn's car, driven by Mark Cummins, the rebels were established there.

The only source for the allegation is 'testimony' from a Miss Geraldene (sic) Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald's account, said to be from her diary of that day, is kept in the British National Archives at Kew, marked Evidence Against Countess Markievicz and stamped July 14, 1917. That it's from her diary, 'kindly supplied' by her mother who lived in Birr, can't be verified however, as it consists only of two typewritten pages. In fact, it reads more like a deposition, taken down by someone tasked with gathering incriminating evidence.

Geraldene Fitzgerald, a trainee public health nurse, tells how she was on her way back to the Nurses Home on the Green after her morning rounds. At 12.30pm she was in High Street and took a longer route home to avoid Jacob's where the Sinn Feiners were in possession. Making her way to the south side of the Green she saw the Sinn Feiners inside, digging trenches while others "were ready with rifles to fire on anyone in military or police uniforms who passed that way".

She sat down to dinner in the dining room with some colleagues. It would now be approaching 1pm, if not later.
"We were just taking our soup when we heard the most awful firing outside. We rushed to the front room to see what was happening. What we saw was this... a lady in green uniform... holding a revolver in one hand and a cigarette in the other.... we recognised her as the Countess Markievicz...'
From the window the nurses saw a policeman coming from Harcourt Street. "He had only gone a short way when we heard a shot and then saw him fall forward on his face. The 'Countess' ran triumphantly into the Green, saying 'I got him' and some of the rebels shook her by the hand and seemed to congratulate her..."
Apart from the crucial matters of the timing and the location of the shooting, which are totally at odds with the DMP's report, there are other extremely questionable aspects to this account. Among them are that the likelihood of a remark, as Fitzgerald relates it, carrying from the west side of the Green and across a wide stretch of road noisy with the activities of the rebels, onlookers and the traffic still going up and down, is small.
The dining room would have been on the ground floor from where you could hardly see into the Green. Also, Constance was experienced with guns since her sportive youth at Lissadell and its difficult to imagine her exulting like an untried markswoman in the accuracy of a shot at such close range.

It's hard to know what to make of Fitzgerald's account or to say what she saw or did not see - only that it seems at the very least fanciful and based more on a year's worth of rumours than on reality. It could not stand up in a court of law, which may be why it did not appear on Markievicz's charge-sheet when she was tried on various grounds in 1920. Only the obstinately mischievous - to put it kindly - can continue to cite it. continue to cite it.

A Dub in Glasgo

riffmongous wrote: »

Did you read the thread in the history forum?

Obviously not, the intention of the post is not to learn but to attribute blame to CM and then draw people into defending the killing

LordSutch

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Obviously not, the intention of the post is not to learn but to attribute blame to CM and then draw people into defending the killing

I asked this >>>

maryishere wrote: »

"I often hear great plaudits being heaped upon Countess Markievicz for her part in the 1916 Rising, but I also heard an account the other day on the radio of how she shot dead an unarmed policeman in Stephens Green.

Can this be true? and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?"

To which Maryishere gave a seemingly knowledgeable answer in post No 23, which then begged the question "and if true, should she be held in such high esteem?"

It happened in St Stephens Green, and Markievicz was involved . . .

I'll leave it at that.

maryishere

riffmongous wrote: »

Did you read the thread in the history forum?

Here is the pertinent info anyway, sunday indo

that piece above was written by Anne Haverty for the Independent and was effectively an add for her book. You will see at the bottom of the piece "Anne Haverty's 'Constance Markievicz: Irish Revolutionary' will be published in a new and revised edition next month".

The piece / interviews on RTE last week was far more impartial. Nobody there had an axe to grind or book to sell glorifying "Constance Markievicz: Irish Revolutionary".

See also: http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/6992140/Was-Countess-Markievicz-a-hero-or-a-cold-blooded-killer.html

A Dub in Glasgo

maryishere wrote: »

that piece above was written by Anne Haverty for the Independent and was effectively an add for her book. You will see at the bottom of the piece "Anne Haverty's 'Constance Markievicz: Irish Revolutionary' will be published in a new and revised edition next month".

The piece / interviews on RTE last week was far more impartial. Nobody had an axe to grind or book to sell glorifying "Constance Markievicz: Irish Revolutionary".

So where is the evidence that you offer?