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
Irish rank and file soldiers' response to 1857 mutiny
Options
Comments
-
I think we understand your point, but the use of the term is not the ordinary one and it's use could be seen as inflammatory. Those soldiers, whatever their motivations, were fighting in the army of their country as it was then constituted.
You wouldn't call conscripts 'mercenaries' if they were fighting a war other than one of national survival, would you?
Got it, and I agree with what you're saying. I really don't mean to be offending anyone. I understand that we are discussing a sensitive subject matter here. Thanks for intervening.0 -
You are supposing that the normal reason for enlisting in an army is some form of patriotism. I'd be highly sceptical of such an assumption, particularly in considering the motives of rank and file soldiers....
Not strange, at least not from my perspective. I would use that word to describe a soldier that fights for a foreign army. In other words, for a cause other than nationalism. From what little I know, it seems that most peasant Irish soldiers were fighting for causes other than nationalism as the majority did not consider Queen's rule to be their chosen form of government. Sure enough, there would have been exceptions to this....
Many saw soldiering as a job in circumstances where jobs were scarce; some saw the possibility of adventure; Irish folk tradition also suggests that many were tricked into enlisting. And some, probably small, proportion of them saw themselves as serving their queen and their country.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »I would not find Crosbie’s assertion (as quoted by Missent above) particularly controversial. Additionally, most Irish people today do not know the difference between the Indian Army and the Army in India, so comment often is not often accurate.
In 1916 most of the Irish population did not give a damn about the GPO/Rising when it happened, same the Fenian Rising before that and the Rebellion of 1798 before that, so why expect that the HEIC recruits take an ‘anti-colonial view’ and sympathise with the natives? Those troops were in a hostile environment with their 'mates' and primarily for that reason would identify with their army comrades. Secondly for religious (Christian), education, colour, social background and aspirational reasons they would have identified with the HEIC, not the natives.
At a more gentrified level there was a strong tradition that younger sons joined the HEIC – the cost was considerably less than joining a ‘good’ regiment in the British Army (at a time when commissions were bought) and the potential rewards were considerably higher. That 'Irishness' brought loyalty from serving NCOs and troops. Similarly at a governmental / administrator level, there was a disproportionately large number of Irish in the Indian Civil Service – and many of them did very good work - eg the Stokes brothers, including Whitely Stokes the Celtic scholar. TCD was a training school for the ICS and the Church (Established). All these ties were reinforced by being Irish first and the R.Catholic / Protestant divide was left far behind.
William Burrell, an early shareholder in the HEIC, later leased lands around Kinsale / Bandon on Ireland’s south coast for shipbuilding and timber ‘harvesting’ and a few Company ships were built there in the early 1600s.
'Plain Tales from the Raj' by Charles Allen gives very good insight on the Punjab as does his 'A Soldier of the Company'. There is quite a good history of Nicholson in the former.
Id agree with this more than most Ive read here, not that Im criticising others, while I have visited some parts of India and have an interest in history I am not significantly (have not made myself aware) of the specifics of the events you describe such as locations and who participated (OP), other than the supposed spark (the animal fat covering of the paper ammunition) .
I would add also, that I imagine the groups involved in the uprising didnt differentiate between the white Irish soldiers or other white British soldiers as to where they originated from, I can imagine there were desperate moments of defence where soldiers were fighting for their lives and whehter they agreed with the motives of the local people or not would have been surpassed by their own instinct for survival, which would be better helped by fighting than trying to explain they were Irish (in part Im joking about this, as this would be a completely impractical proposition).
On the other hand, had they declined to fight, it is very certain they would have ended up on the wrong side of a firing squad, as Im more aware happened many soldiers in the British Army during WW1 for shell shock or whatever reason (Im sure there were plenty of Irish that ended up that way too) and both the Russian and German Armies during WW2 and Im sure other armies but not to the extent Ive read/been informed.
Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.
In that light, it seems they had few options, not fight and die or fight, either A decline to fight and die at the hands of those involved in the uprising or die at the hands of some other unit of the British forces or fight and possibly live.Balmed Out wrote: »Would that not have been born out of a competition for the same work though which wouldnt have been the case in India
Id have thought so, although racism towards african americans was not the sole preserve of the Irish.0 -
Id agree with this more than most Ive read here, not that Im criticising others, while I have visited some parts of India and have an interest in history I am not significantly (have not made myself aware) of the specifics of the events you describe such as locations and who participated (OP), other than the supposed spark (the animal fat covering of the paper ammunition) .
I would add also, that I imagine the groups involved in the uprising didnt differentiate between the white Irish soldiers or other white British soldiers as to where they originated from, I can imagine there were desperate moments of defence where soldiers were fighting for their lives and whehter they agreed with the motives of the local people or not would have been surpassed by their own instinct for survival, which would be better helped by fighting than trying to explain they were Irish (in part Im joking about this, as this would be a completely impractical proposition).
On the other hand, had they declined to fight, it is very certain they would have ended up on the wrong side of a firing squad, as Im more aware happened many soldiers in the British Army during WW1 for shell shock or whatever reason (Im sure there were plenty of Irish that ended up that way too) and both the Russian and German Armies during WW2 and Im sure other armies but not to the extent Ive read/been informed.
Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.
In that light, it seems they had few options, not fight and die or fight, either A decline to fight and die at the hands of those involved in the uprising or die at the hands of some other unit of the British forces or fight and possibly live.
Id have thought so, although racism towards african americans was not the sole preserve of the Irish.
I understand what you are saying. But this exercise (of communicating with you all through this platform) is aimed towards finding out from correspondences, or family anecdotes as to what they actually "thought" of the rebellion (and not how they acted). And, to that end, the pointer to Michael Mallin's correspondences with Ms. Hicks is most helpful to me as it shows what he "thought" of a similar situation (that took place about 40 years after the rebellion but still relevant).
I think, at this point, I would really like to thank all who pointed me to these various sources. I am realizing that I have a lot to study. Ireland's relationship with Britain and with British colonies is much more complex than I had initially thought. I'll go into hiatus for now but will come back for more, I am sure :-)0 -
Refusal to fight or as I can imagine it is called (treachery) is one of the (if not the) least tolerated actions a soldier can do.
Not treachery - the charge of treason is far more complex than that. British Soldiers executed in WW1 by the British Armed Forces totalled no more than 306, certainly not the wholesale slaughter meted out by flying squads of German military police [aka Kettenhunden/chaindogs after the gorget they wore at the throat] during WW2 or by the Red Army, whose NKVD followed soldiers into battle and shot any lagging behind to encourage the others.
The charges brought against British soldiers were simple ones of military discipline, and included any or all of the following, plus others I can't lay my paws on right now -
1. Cowardice in the face of the enemy.
2. Desertion in the face of the enemy.
3. Failure to carry out a direct order in the face of the enemy.
4. Failure or omission in carrying out a a direct order in the face of the enemy.
FYI, twenty-eight soldiers of Irish descent were executed in WW1 on charges ranging from desertion to wilful disobedience. The book, 'Forgotten Soldiers' by Stephen Walker, tells the story.
My own view is that twenty-eight - a lamentable figure in any event - out of a total Irish commitment of well of over a quarter of a million speaks for the great resilience of the Irish fighter over many others.
tac0 -
Advertisement
-
Not treachery - the charge of treason is far more complex than that. British Soldiers executed in WW1 by the British Armed Forces totalled no more than 306, certainly not the wholesale slaughter meted out by flying squads of German military police [aka Kettenhunden/chaindogs after the gorget they wore at the throat] during WW2 or by the Red Army, whose NKVD followed soldiers into battle and shot any lagging behind to encourage the others.
The charges brought against British soldiers were simple ones of military discipline, and included any or all of the following, plus others I can't lay my paws on right now -
1. Cowardice in the face of the enemy.
2. Desertion in the face of the enemy.
3. Failure to carry out a direct order in the face of the enemy.
4. Failure or omission in carrying out a a direct order in the face of the enemy.
FYI, twenty-eight soldiers of Irish descent were executed in WW1 on charges ranging from desertion to wilful disobedience. The book, 'Forgotten Soldiers' by Stephen Walker, tells the story.
My own view is that twenty-eight - a lamentable figure in any event - out of a total Irish commitment of well of over a quarter of a million speaks for the great resilience of the Irish fighter over many others.
tac
If the military term is treason,
I thought treason was against a nation and maybe an army, I didnt think of the word treason at the time, treachery seemed suitable, it seems almost interchangeable, but if thats the word they use.
I think you could add self inflicted injury to that list too,
The above seems it could support my view, I had thought the figures were greater in the BEF in WW1, but any of those charges could easily be trumped up and from what I read many were.
Many actions could easily be construed as suitable to have a soldier shot at dawn.
Cowardice, taking cover
Desertion, some necessary retreat (or alternative, die/capture)
Failure to carry out a direct order,
Attack that trench, Yes sir, can we wait till they change belts on the MG or till our artillery can pin them down sir, Sergeant, take his name, if he survives the battle, I want this man court martialed.
I read somewhere that soldiers carrying message between trenches were nabbed and put up on charges to be court martialled for desertion.
Anyway, I think what I was saying is that it is less likely for men to try pay attention to the enemy's cause, as all that will be in store for them is a different bullet from their own side, one which will not miss.
As for Russian, I should have said Soviet, 13,500 executions during the battle of Stalingrad excluding those unaccounted for, to maintain order. I read a figure somewhere before for the German side, for refusal to fight, cowardice (probably shell/battle shock too) but cant find it.
Anyway, off topic0 -
@rpatel, you might be interested in this website, which has a brisk outline of the Irish military experience in India:
http://www.roguery.com/golden/east/index.htm
and in James Connolly's 1908 article, The Coming Revolt in India:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1908/01/india1.htm
(Connolly was a child soldier in the British Army, leaving his desperately poor family in Scotland to serve in Ireland from the age of 14 to 21.)
You ask why the Irish, themselves disadvantaged by colonisation and occupation, would have helped their colonisers to oppress Indians; the answer is that 'Divide and Rule' is the watchword of the exploiter. If you can divide people from each other, there's no chance that they'll stand together against you.
Ireland was the warehouse of the British Army, with huge barracks dotting every town, and enormous numbers of soldiers living in them. I was recently looking at prison records for the teens of the century and soldiers featured largely, as burglars, fraudsters, rapists, deserters, thieves, murderers, etc. Surprisingly, they were mostly 5'3" tall.
I have read - but where I can't remember - that the British sited their power in the most prosperous cities in India, and that these particular cities are now the poorest in the subcontinent.
Your questions on pay and conditions may partly be answered by this piece:
http://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/Karsten.pdf0 -
Treason - the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.
As far as a soldier in the British Army of WW1 is concerned, simply failing to obey a direct order was enough to earn the firing squad, as is 'failing to prosecute an attack with sufficient vigour'. Getting lost, as some did in the literal fog of war, and failing to be there when the fog cleared, would earn you a firing squad, as a few otherwise brave soldiers found to their cost. Not being in possession of your issued firearm when found wandering behind the lines was also a shootable offence.
Enough of that, having torn the a$$ out of it, and let's look at the correspondence from Irish soldiers to their kith and kin back home in the 'ould sod.
Not much, is there?
A few reasons for this might be -
1. General illiteracy on the part of the soldier - it was commonplace for a soldier to ask a comrade to write a letter for him - or even a friendly sergeant or corporal.
2. Lack of ready communication between India and UK for the lower orders. Sure, officers could and did send mail, but who was going to pay for the private soldier to send HIS letter back to Ireland? It cost a lot of money to do it in those days, and the usual means of getting news back to relatives was to give a letter to a returnee, if one could be found. Few were. In the days when regiments spent many years away from home - ten years was commonplace - then, as now, units moved en masse, and there was little point in writing home if you could reasonably expect to be there within six months or so.
So we learn lives of the the officers, but little of the lives of the men that they commanded. One facinating and probably unique story was that related by Rifleman Harris, who went through a great part of the Napoleonic War. 'The Recollections of Rifleman Harris' is a memoir published in 1848 of the experiences of an enlisted soldier in the 95th Regiment of Foot in the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. The eponymous soldier was Benjamin Randell Harris, a private who joined the regiment in 1803 and served in many of the early campaigns in the Peninsula War. In the mid-1830s, Harris was working as a cobbler in London when he met an acquaintance, Captain Henry Curling, who asked him to dictate an account of his experiences of army life. This account was then held by Curling until 1848, when he succeeded in getting the manuscript published, preserving one of the very few surviving accounts of military service in this era from a private soldier.
AFAIK, this has no counterpart with any Irish soldier serving at the same time, or subsequently.
It is, however, a telling tale of unbelievable hardship, squalor, suffering and bravery of an almost unimaginable scale - made all the more poignant because of the off-hand, matter-of-fact way in which it is related.
tac0 -
That wouldn't have been unusual. As food supplies and food security have improved over the last few centuries, average heights have increased by 20-50mm per generation.Qualitymark wrote: »Surprisingly, they were mostly 5'3" tall.0 -
galwaycyclist wrote: »
Wonderful poem about the dehumanisation of war and armies. "Fields where sheep may safely graze" become "the central sector" so you can bomb them; trees with their soft green leaves and nests full of babies are only fir, poplar or bushy-topped, so that you can bomb them.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement