AHC/WI : Sucessful landing of the Expedition d'Irlande in 1796

[MerryPrankster]

Here's another thought:

Even if the British crush the Irish and their French allies, if it causes major changes in the population of Ireland (many Catholic peasants dead or fled, Protestants brought over to replace them), this might affect how the Potato Famine plays out.

A smaller population might not subdivide its lands to the point the only crop one can grow in sufficient quantities to support one's family solely is potatoes, frex.

 

[Arachnid]

Good points Arachnid I never said it would be definatly possible I see your point, but it would have been possible for an Ireland to remain independent for a while anyways at least, the United
Irishmen did have their problems.

The United Irishmen were far from united and had numerous problems, not least a significant section of the population were in favour of either the status quo or Union with Britain. I would argue that they had a 5% chance of success and that comes not from a successful rising but from the French managing to land in Britain and knock the UK out of the war.

My reasons are training wasn't very long back then basic troops would go through a couple of weeks training elite troops came from experience and if Ireland was taken you had British arms to supply the United Irishmen.

Okay that's just wrong on so many levels.

a.) It may have only taken a few weeks to train an individual recruit but there is world of difference between that and training a battalion, regiment or army up to an acceptable level. It takes years or rather decades to build up an experienced and discipled NCO cadre. The (not very) United Irishmen might have got some defectors but they certainly wouldn't have got the experienced officer corps that Britain had, who may have included a lot of Irishmen (e.g. Wellington) but would have been fighting for the other side. Regimental officers and NCO's are far more important to a unit's quality than privates, they are what separate an Army from a mob with guns. Britain had both the Rebels had neither.

b.) A couple of thousand Brown Bess's are lovely, though there weren't sufficient to equip 300,000 volunteers, but what about the logistical train? You still need powder mills, artillery foundries, flint factories etc. to maintain your force, Ireland was pre-industrial at this point and didn't have those, nor can they be created out of thin air, while dependence of French supplies is an Achilles heel and looting British arsenals is a one time only option.

In Ireland in 1796 their was very little British force mainly Yeomanry and Militia(conscripted some where actually United Irishmen before they had to join) in which half of these where willing to join the United Irishmen also the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was crying out for British soldiers a year later in 1797 as he feared rebellion but he was told they couldn't afford to send over extra troops, Britain was more worried about defending its own coast than keeping Ireland in check as well.

I understand but there is massive difference between preferring to keep troops in Hampshire to deter a potential French invasion rather than suppressing a potential rebellion in Ireland and keeping troops in Hampshire even after the French have invaded Ireland.

In 1796 their wouldn't have been 300,000 according to British Intelligence but it would have steam rolled once the French landed.

300,000 volunteers (maybe). Volunteer =/= Soldier.

Plus if Ireland was free Napoleon would have put extra resources into getting reinforcements to Ireland he attempted 4 times I think and succeeded in 1, twice British interference and once was weather and bad seamanship.
In 1797-98 he had a force of 50,000 ready for Ireland but never deployed them.

Napoleon wasn't running the show at this point but he later mustered 200,000 men for an invasion of England, that doesn't mean it succeeded. The French will be able to sneak the occasional convoy through but the price in lost ships and sunk regiments will be high and frankly France has better things to be doing with it's resources. This is an existential battle for the British, a campaign of choice for the French.

Also once Ireland is free and has the time to train up our own army lets say 100,000 which isn't over the top British Isles had a population of just over 12,000,000 and 4,500,000 of this is Ireland. Plus whatever elite French we have this is a strong defensive army.

Actually Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) had a population of 10.5 million, Ireland around 5 million of whom around 25% are Loyalist Protestants, mostly in Ulster but also the Pale of Settlement around Dublin. Irishman =/= Republican.

I know Britain controls the seas and can plan her attack when she wants but she can't attack Ireland from a defensive position.

Well aside from pointing out that the best defense is a good attack remember Ulster, there the majority the population will have loyalist sympathies and Britain can very easily stand on the defensive even if they are defeated in the other provinces.

Also yes Ireland would more than likely be cut off for trade purposes resulting in probably having to come to some sort of agreement with Britain eventually maybe handing over certain Naval positions.

Ireland isn't America, the American Revolution divided British opinion with large numbers feeling the war in America wasn't worth the cost. That isn't true of Ireland, British public (or rather elite) opinion would "bear any burden, pay any price" to maintain British control, some naval bases isn't going to do.

 

[Faeelin]

Even if the British crush the Irish and their French allies, if it causes major changes in the population of Ireland (many Catholic peasants dead or fled, Protestants brought over to replace them), this might affect how the Potato Famine plays out.

The United Irishmen were Protestant-led, as Thande points out, so I am not sure the Catholics will suffer disproportionately more.

 

[Cú Raghnaill]

Arachnid I said the United Irishmen where divided in my original post one problem for success was the reality of the divisions in which the British played them against each other in the build up to the Rebellion.

In the training a lot of the Irish had military training although I never said they would destroy any British invasion(or would be far superior in fighting) but if you have even 50,000 armed with guns it makes a big difference from Pike they still would put up a much better fight than men only trained in using the Pike, United Irishmen had been training in units they didn't all just show up one night to have a fight, they had ex British Military leading each county battalion they also had arms especially in Ulster(vast majority armed with Pike).

I take your point about Ireland not being industrialised to a certain extent as Ireland was a million miles behind Britain but there is a myth that Ireland was never industrialised, Dublin and later Belfast had been industrialised, Dublin had been booming as an industrial City in the 1700's and Dublin was the 2nd richest city in the British Empire and 8th in the world. As I said before there was massive gun powder mills and ammunition storage in Cork Harbour it was colossal and would have backed the rebellion for a while anyways other gunpowder mills scattered the south coast, as far as I know there was artillery foundries in the north, Ireland had the capabilities to industrialise military wise in a small scale, once independent they would run their own affairs, wether you believe it or not countries do have to start from somewhere.

As population I don’t know where your getting 25% protestant in Ireland more like 10% and Ulster wasn’t a vast majority Protestant it was a small majority, plus it was split majority between Presbyterian and Protestant, Presbyterians where supporting the United Irish cause as well as a lot of Protestants 1796 the Orange Order was still very small it grew rapidly in the two years till 1798 and still got defeated in the north in 1798 by the United Irishmen, but Hoche’s landing would have been 1796 when the Orange Order was even weaker.

Also when Napoleon had 50,000 troops ready for Ireland it was during the British Naval mutiny it would have been easy to send them over but he never did, if Ireland was free and had French influence this might have changed his mind.

Britain financially would also have been worse off if an Ireland becomes free less money to raise a massive army.

So I think 35% initial success and 10%-15% lasting success especially when Ireland starts kicking the shit out of itself and becomes isolated from trade by British embargo.
But once free things would change Ireland would be running itself not been exploited and kept weak.



I hope you don’t get all your sources from Wikipedia.

 

[Faeelin]

The United Irishmen were far from united and had numerous problems, not least a significant section of the population were in favour of either the status quo or Union with Britain.

What do you base it on?

The (not very) United Irishmen might have got some defectors but they certainly wouldn't have got the experienced officer corps that Britain had, who may have included a lot of Irishmen (e.g. Wellington) but would have been fighting for the other side.

The French would be around training instructors, you know. I think the example of partisans elsewhere in the period means we shouldn't count them out.

I understand but there is massive difference between preferring to keep troops in Hampshire to deter a potential French invasion rather than suppressing a potential rebellion in Ireland and keeping troops in Hampshire even after the French have invaded Ireland.

So in response to a French invasion of Ireland, the English strip defenses from England with no difficulties elsewhere? Hrm.

 

[MerryPrankster]

About the Catholic peasantry, they represent the majority of the population and they're going to suffer the most due to armies going back and forth across their land. They're going to try to get out of there.