What if the 1916 Rising had not happened?

Jesus.

Joe prim wrote: »

There were Lancers (and at least one horse ) shot on O'Connell St. by snipers attached to the GPO garrison, but they did not charge (and even the most incompetent cavalry commander would hardly have led a charge against a fortified building)

So were they just out for a stroll in the middle of O'Connell Street because that's where the picture of the dead horse(s) is/are?

I'm not saying you're wrong its just that I'd like to have a link or something if possible

Jesus.

No need, I've got it:

A troop of the 6th Reserve Cavalry Regiment, dispatched from Marlborough Barracks, proceeded down O'Connell Street. As it passed Nelson's Pillar, level with the GPO, the rebels opened fire, killing three cavalrymen and two horses and fatally wounding a fourth man. The cavalrymen retreated and were withdrawn to barracks. This action is often referred to, inaccurately, as the "Charge of the Lancers." - Wiki

I recall years ago hearing somewhere that the Volunteers were told to hold their fire until the Lancers were right beneath them but one nervous youth fired early meaning the Lancers retreated without heavy casualties.

Joe prim

Jesus. wrote: »

No need, I've got it:

A troop of the 6th Reserve Cavalry Regiment, dispatched from Marlborough Barracks, proceeded down O'Connell Street. As it passed Nelson's Pillar, level with the GPO, the rebels opened fire, killing three cavalrymen and two horses and fatally wounding a fourth man. The cavalrymen retreated and were withdrawn to barracks. This action is often referred to, inaccurately, as the "Charge of the Lancers." - Wiki

I recall years ago hearing somewhere that the Volunteers were told to hold their fire until the Lancers were right beneath them but one nervous youth fired early meaning the Lancers retreated without heavy casualties.

I thought Jesus knew everything?:eek:


Joking aside, the "Charge of the Lancers" is just one example of how various myths and legends arise around historical events, and while often harmless in themselves, are later used to 'illustrate' some aspect of the event which someone wishes to "prove", E.g British stupidity, Irish Gallantry,German brutality, French duplicity etc etc. It's the "my cousin's grandfather's neighbour says" school of history.

recedite

Seems more like an ambush than a charge. As they were supposed to be some of the first military casualties, it seems fair to assume they trotted down from the phoenix park and had no idea what they were getting into.
If it had been "an unruly mob" on O'Connell St, the men on horses would have been quite effective at dispersing them.

Nowadays the Gardai have a few mounted officers operating out of the Phoenix Park. They can be good in a crowd situation, but I think cavalry/mounted men have always been partly symbolic. Especially when all polished up, they project a certain image, of state pomp and power.

A bit like the Mount St. firefight, it was a case of lions led by donkeys, and arrogance overruling a more cautious approach.

jonniebgood1

Jesus. wrote: »

How come you didn't ask that of Recedite or Joe Prim or anyone else for that matter?

You are just back from a ban.

For quoted backseat moderation post you get a longer ban. However, more damaging for this forum is the likes of you who do not seem to understand the need for something as basic as a source for information posted. Rather you question the need for a source when it is requested. Maybe you should use you ban time to educate yourself as to the value of sources. Start with the threads at the top of the history forum page.
Moderator

By the way wiki is not a source...

josephryan1989

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your source?

The Easter Rebellion by Max Caulfield.

Colonel Hammond led the charge which began the at the Parnell Monument before the rebels in the GPO opened fire as they passed the Nelson's Pillar. He lost four dead and several wounded and was forced to retreat.

demfad

A clause in the home rule bill allowing for the Ulster situation to be reviewed if there were changes there, caused the militarisation of Ireland.

This allowed Ulster to 'change things' by setting up the UVF and importing 1000s of guns from Germany. This was an occasion where Redmond was duped. He did not see the consequences of the British Govts clause.

Now the Nationalists had to set up their own army to counteract the UVF and ensure full Home rule. All the time the Tories started screaming civil war in a deliberate attempt to further inflame the situation for their own political ends.

WW1 started and now the British had several hundred thousand potential Irishmen half fighting against home rule, half fighting for it. Redmond promised the Irish volunteers, thinking that they might form an Irish corps with their own emblems etc as a prelude to an Irish army. Nothing of the sort happened, ofcourse. In fact if you were Irish in the British army, you were likely to be harshly treated by officers and British soldiers and you were also several times more likely to be killed in battle. This was the 'non-violent' approach to nationalism: sending 10s of thousands of men to kill, maim soldiers and civilans, or be killed,maimed fighting for 'Home Rule' or 'Catholic Belgium' or whatever excuse the imperial government needed to keep the canon fodder supplies up.

1916 wasn't about moving a few steps under British rule. It was about a complete revolution. A fair Republican country for all, rather than being part of a colonial empire, under a monarch with the subsequent inequalities and requiring large amounts of Irish people to die in their imperial wars. You cannot evaluate 1916 without the previous militarisation of Ireland and without WW1.

The strong subsequent support for the rising indicated the amount of fuel present in Ireland when that match was lit. People wanted a fair state for their children and grandchildren. The British atrocities in 1916, the stories coming back from WW1 all added to the realisation that not only did Irish people not want to be second class citizens in the UK anymore, they didn't want to be part of that State AT ALL.

The huge drop subsequent off in recruitment for WW1 was predicted by Connolly, and probably saved the lives of many many thousands of Irishmen. When the Brits called for Irish conscription. Redmond realised the scale of his deception accusing the British Govt. of "treachery".

Given the amount of Irish deaths, the colonial racism, inequalities, the poverty, the imperial doctrine in education etc. etc. present in Ireland under the regime, people had every right to seek a complete revolution.

Remember the Act of Union was passed only by the bribery of the Irish parliament (Landed Protestant only) to the value of today several €100 million. In any era this can understandably be disregarded as illegitimate.

The fact that the rising soldiers behaved with honour, treated prisoners and British soldiers compassionately is important. This was necessary, not personal.

demfad

Joe prim wrote: »

I thought Jesus knew everything?:eek:


Joking aside, the "Charge of the Lancers" is just one example of how various myths and legends arise around historical events, and while often harmless in themselves, are later used to 'illustrate' some aspect of the event which someone wishes to "prove", E.g British stupidity, Irish Gallantry,German brutality, French duplicity etc etc. It's the "my cousin's grandfather's neighbour says" school of history.

The British charge down North King's street was not a myth and an act of gross stupidity. The volunteers had full control of the street and the British officer who ordered it ensured the death of 15 of his men within a few mins.
On hearing of the losses, Lowe in full charge of British forces ordered no prisoners to be taken. This order lead to the massacre of North King Street where all males found in houses there were executed and their body's hidden.

Some of the British tactics against well defended positions were idiotic. Subsequent statements show that many of the volunteers showed more compassion for the British soldiers killed than the British superiors did.

demfad

LordSutch wrote: »

Well thats a new emphasis on the original story which stated that it was Dubliners who abused the rebels as they were led away (after all ther destruction they caused). Yes I'm sure some of those who spat and jeered at the rebels were the wives of Irish/British soldiers, who were protecting Dublin against the rebels... either way, the rebels were not too popular immediately after the event, as Dublin lay smouldering

The destruction and civilian casualties in Dublin were caused by British guns, artillery and British started fires. Britains tactics were aimed at preserving British soldiers lives at the expense of Dubliners. When the death toll was announced the British did not distinguish between Irish soldier and civilian, just as they wouldn't in any other colonial uprising.
There does seem to have been a fair amount of popular support for the rising.
For example many of the volunteers who fought in Bolands mills were able to escape through the crowd and dissapear on their way to surrendering on the way to what is now Pearse street. This would simply not be possible if the crowd were hostile.