WI: United Irishmen are successful?

[Pitt the Even Younger]

How could the 1798 Irish rebellion have been successful, and if it had been what would be the long term consequences of an independent, pro-French Ireland?

I think a lot depends on the survival of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The rebels in Dublin might have been successful if he had survived to lead the uprising there personally. If the United Irishmen had managed to either trap the government in Dublin Castle, or better yet, take them prisoner, Lake would have been isolated in Ulster and the successful rebels in Wexford could have had better luck capitalising on their position of strength.

If the Irish rebels are able to maintain control of Dublin (I believe the British armed forces were stretched rather thinly at this point in time) for a few months, Tone might have been able to convince the French government to contribute a new invasion force to reinforce Ireland (although this might be unlikely after the debacle of Hoche's expedition, some French troops were dispatched to Ireland and had some success before they were defeated by Lake's men).

What would the long-term implications of a successful rising be? In particular, how would the Napoleonic Wars progress if the French have a potential staging ground in the British Isles?

 

[usertron2020]

How could the 1798 Irish rebellion have been successful, and if it had been what would be the long term consequences of an independent, pro-French Ireland?

I think a lot depends on the survival of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The rebels in Dublin might have been successful if he had survived to lead the uprising there personally. If the United Irishmen had managed to either trap the government in Dublin Castle, or better yet, take them prisoner, Lake would have been isolated in Ulster and the successful rebels in Wexford could have had better luck capitalising on their position of strength.

If the Irish rebels are able to maintain control of Dublin (I believe the British armed forces were stretched rather thinly at this point in time) for a few months, Tone might have been able to convince the French government to contribute a new invasion force to reinforce Ireland (although this might be unlikely after the debacle of Hoche's expedition, some French troops were dispatched to Ireland and had some success before they were defeated by Lake's men).

What would the long-term implications of a successful rising be? In particular, how would the Napoleonic Wars progress if the French have a potential staging ground in the British Isles?

The British would make peace with the French if that's what it took to crush the Irish. The only time I can think of where the Irish launched even a mild protest that wasn't met with "send in the troops" was during the ARW, when the British had virtually their entire regular army overseas. That Irish protest was only focused on Free Trade, so Parliament was willing to give in on such a minor matter. For once.

 

[Pitt the Even Younger]

Free trade wasn't a minor matter, though, at least as far as Grattan and the Patriots were concerned. It was meant to be the first step towards a sort of home rule for Ireland within the United Kingdom, followed by the acquisition of legislative independence for the Dublin parliament, which they also achieved.

I'm not sure that the British would make peace with the French, to be honest. Maybe not this soon after the revolution.

 

[Thande]

ASB, unless Britain is successfully invaded by the French.

 

[usertron2020]

ASB, unless Britain is successfully invaded by the French.

Or if the Romans successfully invade Hibernia.

 

[Pitt the Even Younger]

ASB, unless Britain is successfully invaded by the French.

The French did manage to get some soldiers in Ireland, but only after the initial revolt had failed.

 

[archaeogeek]

The French did manage to get some soldiers in Ireland, but only after the initial revolt had failed.

Also they got lost because their guide didn't know Connaught well enough and had them land in a shitty spot.

 

[Pitt the Even Younger]

A bit like the Spanish Armada, in that respect, although their problem was rubbish maps.

 

[I Blame Communism]

You'd want to have it earlier (many UI leaders were already locked up by '98), get the French involved, and most of all, have Britain collapse into a revolution of its own shortly afterwards or at least be so shaken by rebellion that we have to make peace with France.

 

[Pitt the Even Younger]

If that's the case Hoche's expedition would have had to succeed.

 

[usertron2020]

Free trade wasn't a minor matter, though, at least as far as Grattan and the Patriots were concerned. It was meant to be the first step towards a sort of home rule for Ireland within the United Kingdom, followed by the acquisition of legislative independence for the Dublin parliament, which they also achieved.

I'm not sure that the British would make peace with the French, to be honest. Maybe not this soon after the revolution.

During the ARW, the only soldiers left in England of any note were the Militia. This was after French/Spanish entry. To send the Militia to Ireland to crush what amounted to a protest over trade policy? This would have meant stripping the coastal defenses of Southern England down to nothing, and THAT was too much even for the boobs in the North Government.

I was being facetious about making peace with the French.

Britain's relative mobilization in the Napoleonic Wars, matched with their curbstomping of the Franco-Spanish Fleets, meant they had a lot more leeway in Napoleon's time than they did in the ARW, where the Franco-Spanish fleets were very successful in deploying their forces PRIOR to any DoW's. This nullified the RN's usual policy of neutralizing their enemies via blockade.

The leadership Britain displayed in the Napoleonic Wars was infinitely superior to what they showed in the ARW. Indeed, Britain's leaders in the time of Napoleon were amongst the absolute best the British ever knew. Britain had magnificent leaders in the ARW, unfortunately for the British race, they were serving in the finest Opposition the Empire would ever have. Hardly surprising, since any man of true talent not blinded by ambition and loyalty could see how wrong-headed Lord North and George III policies were.

 

[Faeelin]

ASB, unless Britain is successfully invaded by the French.

Well, Britain gave up America short of invasion...

You'd want to have it earlier (many UI leaders were already locked up by '98), get the French involved, and most of all, have Britain collapse into a revolution of its own shortly afterwards or at least be so shaken by rebellion that we have to make peace with France.

I agree with all of this. I think a 1797 could trigger a financial panic and recession, while giving France time to breathe.

Even so, Ireland is more likely to be expendable to France, who take advantage of Britain's troubles to snaffle Egypt and dominate the continent for a generation.

 

[Derek Jackson]

One factor which might have weakened the British state around this time was that elements of the Navy did munitiny

 

[stevep]

One factor which might have weakened the British state around this time was that elements of the Navy did munitiny

Derek

They mutinied about pay and conditions [not actually including flogging, which contrary to some viewpoints was not an issue]. The leaders of the mutiny made clear that if the French set sail they would resume operation and go out to meet them.

Furthermore this was in 1797 and things were over fairly quickly as the Admiralty made the necessary concessions. By 1798 it was pretty much all over. Even with the eastern fleet, where the Nore mutiny had seen a more political tone, which had lead to it splintering pretty quickly, Duncan had seen the same sailors crush the Dutch a little later in 97.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Well, Britain gave up America short of invasion...

A different situation. By then it was pretty clear the rebels and French had overrun most of the country. Furthermore an independent America was not an immediate threat to Britain's survival. In 98 a French influenced Ireland would be seen as a much greater threat, lying as it did across the main trade lines as well as being a highly dangerous stepping stone for a potential invasion. [A lot of people would be aware of the threat posed by the former James II in 1688 for exactly this reason]. Also given the nature of the French revolution at this point there would be much greater fear of social unrest.

I agree with all of this. I think a 1797 could trigger a financial panic and recession, while giving France time to breathe.

There is a possibility of rebellion in Britain, although this is probably more likely earlier in the decade, before the excesses of the French revolution both discredited revolution and made the conservatives more determined to oppose change, hence I think the arrest of various agitators for reform.

The problem would also be what if France tried to invade while Britain was distracted by it's own revolution and possible civil war. A foreign invasion would make matters a lot more complex, especially by French revolutionaries. Both in terms of being the traditional enemy and the policy I think they had already adopted of living off the land they occupy.

Even so, Ireland is more likely to be expendable to France, who take advantage of Britain's troubles to snaffle Egypt and dominate the continent for a generation.

Very true probably, at least in the 1st part.

Steve

 

[stevep]

The leadership Britain displayed in the Napoleonic Wars was infinitely superior to what they showed in the ARW. Indeed, Britain's leaders in the time of Napoleon were amongst the absolute best the British ever knew. Britain had magnificent leaders in the ARW, unfortunately for the British race, they were serving in the finest Opposition the Empire would ever have. Hardly surprising, since any man of true talent not blinded by ambition and loyalty could see how wrong-headed Lord North and George III policies were.

usertron2020

Do I detect a slight bias here? There were skilled leaders on both sides and it's pretty clear that many of the rebels were out for their own political and economic gains. America would have been better off economically by compromising with Britain rather than waging a war to accommodate vested interests.

Steve

 

[archaeogeek]

usertron2020

Do I detect a slight bias here? There were skilled leaders on both sides and it's pretty clear that many of the rebels were out for their own political and economic gains. America would have been better off economically by compromising with Britain rather than waging a war to accommodate vested interests.

Steve

Compromising how? Britain was busy granting monopolies to London based corporations and would not have changed that for a while.

 

[Faeelin]

A different situation.

I agree, I'm just being contrarian

There is a possibility of rebellion in Britain, although this is probably more likely earlier in the decade, before the excesses of the French revolution both discredited revolution and made the conservatives more determined to oppose change, hence I think the arrest of various agitators for reform.

Well one thing that I have posited is:

1) Hoche invades in 1797. As in OTL there's a run on the bank of England. England was able to switch off a gold based standard as a result of the panic (the Bank stop paying in specie), but a financial panic as a result of Hoche's invasion ensues, triggering a depression.

2) Meanwhile, you've got the Spithead and Nore mutinies, as in OTL. Imagine those with the French in Ireland, given that a not insignificant portion (between 10-25%, IIRC) of the navy was Irish.

3) I think the mutinies are suppressed, but vigorous repression ensues, alarming Whigs at home. Meanwhile, the depression triggers an earlier round of Luddism.

usertron2020

Do I detect a slight bias here? There were skilled leaders on both sides and it's pretty clear that many of the rebels were out for their own political and economic gains. America would have been better off economically by compromising with Britain rather than waging a war to accommodate vested interests.

Steve

Can you elaborate?

 

[stevep]

Compromising how? Britain was busy granting monopolies to London based corporations and would not have changed that for a while.

Can you elaborate?

Let's see. Britain wanted the colonies to make a small contribution to their defence. What was asked was to pay for part of the small infantry contribution, or raise their own forces to do it. The bulk of the protection would still de-facto be done by the RN.

Instead the rebels decided on a long and bloody civil war which hampered the country with serious debts. So that they could afterwards pay the entire costs of their defences. This also cost them access to British markets and the protection of the RN for their merchant fleets.

Economically not a good idea for the bulk of the population. Bit it did enable some elites to gain further political power and local economic advantage.

Steve

 

[MFOM]

Britain cannot and will not accept some radical French aligned republic, But they may accept and Irish rebels may well agree too a return a stronger Irish parliament. We should remember that for a period of time Dublin was in some respects the second City not just in Britian but in Europe in terms of people and trade. Even when Ireland became a free nation in the 20's De'Velara knew that Ireland and Britian were joined at the Hip and was willing to coperate but on an equal basis. So no to a radical Irish Republic, but yes to no act of Union yes to a stronger Gratten's parliament.