13 Colonies treated like Ireland

Which anti-Irish rebellion tactics?
Ireland hasn't been the most peaceful of places throughout its history, wars rarely followed the same format. I'm unfamiliar with any standard tactics that lasted the centuries.

I am thinking of things like:
Desmond Rebellions (1569-73 and 1579-83), Nine Years War (1594-1603) Rebellion of 1641 , Cromwell in Ireland in 1649–1653 , William of Orange and the Battle of the Boyne (1690), Irish Rebellion of 1798 , all the way up to the Easter Uprising (1916) and the War of Independance (1922).

I would say the tactics remained fairly constant in the 350 years between the Earl of Desmond and Michael Collins.

This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

"The aftermath of almost every British victory in the rising was marked by the massacre of captured and wounded rebels with some on a large scale such as at Carlow, New Ross, Ballinamuck and Killala.[12] The British were responsible for particularly gruesome massacres at Gibbet Rath, New Ross and Enniscorthy, burning rebels alive in the latter two.[13] For those rebels who were taken alive in the aftermath of battle, being regarded as traitors to the Crown, they were not treated as prisoners of war but were executed, usually by hanging.
In addition non-combatant civilians were murdered by the military, who also carried out many instances of rape, particularly in County Wexford.[14][15] Many individual instances of murder were also unofficially carried out by aggressive local Irish Yeomanry militia units before, during and after the rebellion as their local knowledge led them to attack suspected rebels. "Pardoned" rebels were a particular target.[16]
Rebel

Massacres of loyalist prisoners took place at the Vinegar Hill camp and in Wexford. After the defeat of a rebel attack at New Ross, between 100[17] and 200 prisoners [18] were killed, some by gunshot but the majority were burned alive at Scullabogue when the barn in which they were being held captive was set alight. In Wexford town, on June 20th some 70 loyalist prisoners were marched to the bridge (according to historian James Lydon, first stripped naked[18]) and piked to death."


Lets assume then that several high profile massacres hid followed early British victories. Would Washington have been able to keep his army alloof until it was needed? Would Congress still have funded it? Would the US army have sesponded in the same way the Irish rebels did?
 
Last edited:
The only reason the British did not subdue America by the means they employed in Ireland is that American resistance stopped them.

umm no

if it hadn't been for the Dutch and the French they would have been overrun.
french troops in the field, and the french fleet.
And the 4th anglo-dutch war was purely about the ARW

there was a discussion about that in another thread lately, but can't seem to find it.
 
umm no

if it hadn't been for the Dutch and the French they would have been overrun.
french troops in the field, and the french fleet.
And the 4th anglo-dutch war was purely about the ARW

there was a discussion about that in another thread lately, but can't seem to find it.

The French fleet and its creation of other theaters the British had to fight in around the world was useful but the number of French ground troops in America proper prior to the Yorktown campaign was very small and generally restricted to individual expeditions like the fiasco at Newport, Rhode Island. Also remember that Britain is already experiencing a nasty quagmire in America before the French and Spanish enter the war, that's a good part of why the French and Spanish felt confident enough about America to enter the war openly rather than just covertly provide arms and material.
 
Lets assume then that several high profile massacres hid followed early British victories. Would Washington have been able to keep his army alloof until it was needed? Would Congress still have funded it? Would the US army have sesponded in the same way the Irish rebels did?

The war on the frontier was fought in that manner for the most part with attack's against civilians like the Wyoming and Cherry Valley Massacres. Massacres of surrendering soldiers also happened- The Battle of the Waxhaws is probably the biggest example. Having more incidents like that would probably have helped the American cause since incidents like that turned many neutral American colonists against Britain and onto the Patriot side.
Also I'd say brutality like you're describing was the standard way Britain handled failed rebellions in the 17th and 18th centuries- not just Ireland. Think of the aftermath of Culloden and the '45 in Scotland or the Bloody Azzises that followed Monmouth's Rebellion.
 
Top