Question, How early could Ireland regain its independence. . .
The various Irish kings and the High King could always avoid being conquered in the first place...
Saphroneth
Banned
There wasn't a broad base of support for independence even in 1914, beyond legislative. The end goal was stated to be similar to the Dual Monarchy.
Actual independence owes a fair bit to WW1.
Actual independence owes a fair bit to WW1.
Saphroneth
Banned
Note "broad base". Most of the risings failed precisely because they had no major public backing.
It took the overreaction to the Easter Rising to actually produce that broad base support for a full break.
It always seems to be those who've never been ruled who advocate the 'happiness' of those who were, how they were so much better off when they were oppressed under their thumb.
Saphroneth
Banned
...the heck are you talking about?
I'm referring to how the Rising in Ireland during the year of revolutions across all of Europe was an incredibly damp squib, in which roughly two people died, and how the Fenian cause in the 1860s had as its main objective to annex Canada (for some reason), with the risings in Ireland itself failing precisely because there was no popular surge to the colours.
The later rise in Nationalist sentiment was only due to the deliberate decision of the IRB to turn away from armed struggle in favour of building a broad, nationalist movement. Even after forty years of building this movement, the British were still capable of suppressing the small minority who took part in the Easter Rising, despite Britain being engaged in all-out continental war and the rebels being supplied by the German Government - and many of the leaders of the IRB fought in WW1 on the Western Front.
If you want to see what a popular uprising looks like, look at Poland in 1863, most of the other Revolutions of 1848, or for that matter the secessions from the US in 1861 - a sudden massive surge of enthusiasm when the keg is touched off.
It's a matter of fact that the 1848 and 1867 risings (one driven by a general wave of revolutions across Europe, one driven by the Fenian movement and thousands of demobbed Irish-Americans providing enthusiasm) were the only ones between 1804 and 1916. Even Sinn Fein, at its foundation, saw the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy model as the party's end goal. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Irish Nationalists had no intention of taking advantage of Britain's strategic difficulties: during WWI, one of the two British parliamentary leaders to see their sons die in action fighting for the British army was John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party.
Parnell agreed with Rhodes that 'continued Irish representation at Westminster will immensely facilitate' Imperial Federation, just as Major William Redmond's last speech in the House of Commons hoped he could 'meet the Canadians and the Australians and the New Zealanders, side by side in the common cause and the common field, [and] say to them, "Our country, just as yours, has self-government within the Empire."' In fact, an unnamed Fenian leader- who we would naturally expect to be more hard-line than Parnell- confessed that 'An Irish Parliament was certainly the next best thing to absolute separation, and many of us would be quite content to close the account with England on the basis of legislative independence.' This willingness among Irish Nationalists to maintain links with Britain are why I think it's important that we avoid conflating the ideas of autonomy and independence.
(some of this post taken from fitting sections from Cerebropetrologist's analyses)
Now, on the separate issue of whether people prefer being free or subjects, I would venture the opinion that the vast majority of people throughout history haven't cared overmuch one way or another.
Last edited:
That can be played both ways. People who live in an independent country that has created a nationalist mythology for their founding independence often excessively exaggerate how much of the yearning for freedom actually existed.
Falkenburg
Monthly Donor
Suppose Ireland as a bastion of Royalist support during the Civil Wars, successfully repelling "English" Parliamentary incursions and achieving practical autonomy followed by some form of working relationship with the Commonwealth (under Cromwell or otherwise).
Come Restoration, Ireland retains, or even enhances, it's legislative Independance as a counterweight to Parliament (in the eyes of the Monarchy).
An Independant Ascendancy Ireland (plenty of domestic issues to tackle but a utopia was not what was asked for.
Come Restoration, Ireland retains, or even enhances, it's legislative Independance as a counterweight to Parliament (in the eyes of the Monarchy).
An Independant Ascendancy Ireland (plenty of domestic issues to tackle but a utopia was not what was asked for.
This would have the English noblemen in charge of Ireland and if it were a royalist bastion... Yah, it would just be a source of more Stuartist invasions. That Bonny Prince fella later on saw Scotland and Ireland as jumping stones for England, the fattest of the prizes. If we have Cavalier Englishmen in charge of Ireland I wonder if (though this might just be my thoughts from when Stannis went to the Wall in ASOIAF) land is seized and given to the exiled noblemen.
Falkenburg
Monthly Donor
Not so much. Think more emphasis on the Old English (Fitz-whatever's) than Anglo incomers.
Their position and influence bolstered by relative success compared to English Royalist Nobles. Why then would the Crown seek to destroy some of their strongest, most competent supporters?
Reaching an accommodation with the Commonwealth is a good reason to curtail Stuartist adventurism.
It's a tightrope to walk but does present an opportunity for an (relatively) Independent Ireland at an early date, which is what was asked for.
Their position and influence bolstered by relative success compared to English Royalist Nobles. Why then would the Crown seek to destroy some of their strongest, most competent supporters?
Reaching an accommodation with the Commonwealth is a good reason to curtail Stuartist adventurism.
It's a tightrope to walk but does present an opportunity for an (relatively) Independent Ireland at an early date, which is what was asked for.
Perhaps an early pod could be John being made King of Ireland?
While he does become King of England it's then split out again under his son Richard and his heirs.
While he does become King of England it's then split out again under his son Richard and his heirs.
I think that if you have a POD after say 1600, or even earlier, the earliest possible period of independence is after the First World War, unless you count a French victory in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, in which Ireland might become a client state of France.
I agree that the main short term political goal for Irish nationalists just before WW1 was autonomy not outright independence, although that changed with the Easter Rising and the Conscription Crises, which led to Sinn Fein winning the election in 1918.
I agree that the main short term political goal for Irish nationalists just before WW1 was autonomy not outright independence, although that changed with the Easter Rising and the Conscription Crises, which led to Sinn Fein winning the election in 1918.
For an independent Ireland during the 1800s they would need a foreign power being able to defeat the Royal Navy. The earliest period for Irish independence would be an Irish victory in the Nine Years War, which likely would have happened were it not for the strategical mistakes by both the Irish and Spanish leading to the Battle of Kinsale. A successful expedition by the French Republic or Napoleonic France in Ireland would also be a good way, although there is the question if Ireland would be given back to Britain by the Congress of Vienna (From what I've read there were some pro-Irish sympathies in continental Europe at the time in part due to the Irish diaspora having provided many generals and statesmen to different European nations, notably in Austria, France, Russia and Spain) if France were to still lose.
Regarding the 1916 Rising, the main reason for its failure to evolve into something greater was the failure of the Aud to land in Ireland and MacNeill's subsequent countermanding of the rising, isolating it to Dublin. The 1848 and 1867 risings were also extremely poorly planned. The British had also launched a campaign of suppression against the United Irishmen prior to 1798 which limited the scale of the rising, the rising was to supposed to have taken place in 1797 in co-ordination with a French landing.
If Ireland was so loyal to Britain, why was the execution of a few rebels and the attempted imposition of conscription enough to make public sympathies take a complete 180? For comparison, Canada imposed conscription on Quebec and shot anti-conscription protestors, yet there was no Quebecois War of Independence. The fact that William Redmond compared Ireland to Canada or Australia is evidence that Irish Home Rule, had it been granted, would have eventually lead to demand for an independent Irish dominion within the Commonwealth (assuming nothing happened to radicalise the situation).
Saphroneth
Banned
You're reading more into my post than I tried to say. I wasn't saying Ireland was loyal but that Ireland was not disloyal - there's a difference.
Essentially, the heavily disproportionate response to the 1916 rising (which killed a large number of civilians, mostly through the use of heavy weaponry) created not "rebel" martyrs but civilian ones. This is the factor that had been missing from previous suppression of small risings - over two hundred dead civilians and the use of heavy artillery in a city centre.
There was also the executions (which is another difference - because there was a bloody war going on, the old option of commuting most sentences wasn't followed) and Portobello and North Street (which similarly inflamed public opinion). It was a big deal.
I'm not so sure - remember that when he's speaking neither Canada nor Australia has any real independence except over domestic matters. Statute of Westminster is in the future, and the idea of Imperial Federation is by no means dead.
Different context: in Québec, the Catholic Church was strongly loyal to the British (and then Canadian) regime and urged its followers to obey it.