The Irish Revolution Of 1798

The question here is WI French and American troops had managed to invade Northern Ireland in 1798 in support of the rebellion?

Would Wolfe Tone have been able to become Northern Ireland's first Prime Minister?

What would the relationship between Napoleon and America have been like as a result-and how would the British have responded (an earlier version of the War of 1812-perhaps the War of 1805?)
 
The question here is WI French and American troops had managed to invade Northern Ireland in 1798 in support of the rebellion?

Would Wolfe Tone have been able to become Northern Ireland's first Prime Minister?

What would the relationship between Napoleon and America have been like as a result-and how would the British have responded (an earlier version of the War of 1812-perhaps the War of 1805?)
ALL of Ireland was part of the union at this point. Northern Ireland as a political entity did not exist. Do you mean of all Ireland? Had it actually won through, Ireland would be a lot more peaceful today imho.
 
As pointed out, there was no such thing as Northern Ireland and the UI had every intention of creating a united Irish republic.

America is a million miles away. The Atlantic passage took long enough at this point that by the time news of a French effort to assist the UI got to America, they'd probably have won or lost already. Owing to Britain's naval supremacy, it would be a campaign decided early on. Further, of course, America had no desire and little ability to project land military power (or any military power) beyond its most immediate neighbourhood. Nor did it have any reason to sympathise with the Irish for themselves, this being at a time when "Irish Americans" were almost entirely Presbyterian Ulstermen, and were a much less significant demographic than later anyway. There were those in America who sympathised with France and with Britain, and those are the only interests that matter here.

Basically, American involvement is one big red herring based on back-dating the rather green-tinged view Americans tend to have of the island's history.

French involvement is a lot more interesting. In the age of sail-ships and the mark-one eyeball, there is simply no way infalliable way to prevent the enemy getting from A to B; indeed, the RN failed to do much about the French expedition in 1796, which was foiled by command confusion and one of the vilest winters on record.

The thing to do is to make the French invasion come earlier. The UI were actually weaker in 1798 than they had been earlier, having been ruthlessly repressed. If the French had been able to land at some earlier point in the 1790s, avoiding rotten weather, the rebels would have had a shot at victory.
 
France could maybe make an attempt, but at great peril (RN).
USA at the time was utterly uncapable of such a trans-oceanic venture
 
The RN could do little. It's a short passage from Brest to Bantry. Winds favouring, there's nothing much that can be done to impede it: only a few British ships operating from Cork caught any Frenchmen.

It depends on the circumstances. The RN is stronger, although not as dominate at later on, but as you say the French can get lucky.

However the problem is because a hostile Ireland - which a rebel state under French influence would definitely be - is such a threat to Britain it would have to fight. As such you're not talking about a quick victory by the French/rebels but a long slog. The French would have to supply their forces in the island, along with the rebels and that means frequent sailings. That means that over time clashes will occur and the French are going to struggle to maintain this effort.

Steve
 
It depends on the circumstances. The RN is stronger, although not as dominate at later on, but as you say the French can get lucky.

However the problem is because a hostile Ireland - which a rebel state under French influence would definitely be - is such a threat to Britain it would have to fight. As such you're not talking about a quick victory by the French/rebels but a long slog. The French would have to supply their forces in the island, along with the rebels and that means frequent sailings. That means that over time clashes will occur and the French are going to struggle to maintain this effort.

Steve
While I agree that a successful independent state is unlikely to last at this juncture, at least partly because the blow to prestige would be immense, I would contend it also depends on later events. If, after the revolution, especially if this occurs before the rise of Napoleon, the Irish have and take the chance to pull back from the French "side". Possibly on the basis of not supporting the Empire's "crushing of the Republicans" or some such, and become a somewhat pro-British neutral(I think ally would be obviously unlikely) somewhere along the lines of post WWI Ireland and the British might let it go.

It's hardly a favorable situation for the Irish, considering they'll have just gone from official part of the Empire to dragalong ally, but it could concievably allow an independant republic. Said republic will have some big butterflies, if not on the face of Europe, than at least internally in Ireland and things could turn out much better(or, to be fair, much worse) for the isle.

As IBC mentions, there was a brief attempt by the French IOTL 1796, but coincidental conditions ruined the invasion attempt(as usual. Damned channel.:rolleyes:;)). A slightly earlier attempt, or some changes to the weather, could possibly allow a successful revolution.
 
I was just about to post a scenario like this :p

A French invasion is not even strictly necessary for the UI to win. If they'd just had the intelligence to fight a guerrilla war then Britain would probably have let them go when things started hotting up on the continent. Though if the Coalition wins, then the fledgling Irish republic is screwed...

However sticking with "French Help" scenario. I'd say a good POD would be if Napoleon leads the 1796 expedition to Ireland, maybe in the Spring of that year. You've got good weather and a general that managed to conquer northern Italy with Scarecrows, it's an obvious win.

After they set up a provisional Government, then the Irish republic will probably try to disassociate themselves with France. Make peace with Britain and get recognition from other nations.
The chances are that they'll let Irish citizens join in the Napoleonic wars if they liked (like WW2). So staunch republicans will fight for France and what few loyalists remain will join the Connaught Rangers.
 
Assuming the French do land...things are still hard. The government and the Brits can send troops against them at will whilst the French are alone.
Even if they do take Dublin and manage to set up a Republic it won't last long, it'll be first on the list of nations the Brits will go to throw the French out.

I was planning to do a TL from this but the way I had it go has slipped my mind right now..I think it was that the French suffer a defeat and are forced to retreat into the wilds where they take to looting from the locals to keep themselves alive (as armies were prone to doing). This really turns a lot of the population who were otherwise indifferent against the republicans.
Or maybe a negotiated peace is reached where Ireland remains a kingdom but the voting franchise is increased- the United Irishmen returning to their routes, perhaps after seeing the nasty road the French revolution ended up going down. That could lead to quite a interesting interplay.

What I was going for eventually was Ireland not joining the union and how things would go for them in the 19th century.
 
No it wasn't, all of Ireland was part of a separate kingdom (albeit one under strong British influence, though that had decreased since Grattan got his parliament in the 1780s).

True. The Act of Union in 1801 made the United Kingdom, for some reason someone thought that anti-British republican rebels could some how be placated by being forced into a union with Britain.

And that's why Robert Emmet lead a second UI revolution in 1803.
 
The Royal Navy was a powerful force that few could match up to though that reputation wasn't until later on in the next century. I think direct military involvement in the Irish Revolution would be headed by the French with some minor American assistance though that's really pushing it.
 
No it wasn't, all of Ireland was part of a separate kingdom (albeit one under strong British influence, though that had decreased since Grattan got his parliament in the 1780s).
Well pointed out. I am suitably embarrassed.:eek:
 
True. The Act of Union in 1801 made the United Kingdom, for some reason someone thought that anti-British republican rebels could some how be placated by being forced into a union with Britain.

And that's why Robert Emmet lead a second UI revolution in 1803.

Todyo1798

The reason that's been suggested, that union with the UK was better for Ireland, was because it replaced the Dublin Parliament with one based in London. This would not normally be a good idea for winning over the locals but since the Dublin parliament was dominated by hard line Protestants many thought that the treatment of the Catholic majority would be less extreme. That was the basic reason why the union was pushed by London.

Steve
 
Todyo1798

The reason that's been suggested, that union with the UK was better for Ireland, was because it replaced the Dublin Parliament with one based in London. This would not normally be a good idea for winning over the locals but since the Dublin parliament was dominated by hard line Protestants many thought that the treatment of the Catholic majority would be less extreme. That was the basic reason why the union was pushed by London.

Steve

Well that definately worked...
 
True. The Act of Union in 1801 made the United Kingdom, for some reason someone thought that anti-British republican rebels could some how be placated by being forced into a union with Britain.

And that's why Robert Emmet lead a second UI revolution in 1803.

As Steve says better to be ruled by folks far away who aren't bothered about you than folks who live on your doorstep and actively hate you.

Also there was meant to be catholic emancipation along with the act of union. Due to the king acting up and moaning it would go against his vows as defender of the faith this got delayed until 1830 or so iirc (29?)

Additionally- Ireland was already pretty much dominated by British foreign policy. They had the same king so if Britain decided to go to war with someone Ireland was somewhat forced along. With Irish MPs in Westminister though they could really get much more of a say.
Ireland was upgraded from being a little pseudo part of the empire to being part of the UK itself.

And it did work really. I bet a independant kingdom of Ireland in the 19th century would have been a far far nastier place to live than Ireland in the UK.
 
As Steve says better to be ruled by folks far away who aren't bothered about you than folks who live on your doorstep and actively hate you.
I disagree, as firstly, the folks faraway soon learn to hate you. And secondly, the people on your doorstep are much easier to violently overthrow.

Also there was meant to be catholic emancipation along with the act of union. Due to the king acting up and moaning it would go against his vows as defender of the faith this got delayed until 1830 or so iirc (29?)
Yes IIRC it was thanks to Daniel O'conell.

Additionally- Ireland was already pretty much dominated by British foreign policy. They had the same king so if Britain decided to go to war with someone Ireland was somewhat forced along. With Irish MPs in Westminister though they could really get much more of a say.
Ireland was upgraded from being a little pseudo part of the empire to being part of the UK itself.
Reminds me of what the Loyalists said during the War of Independence, that we were much better of as a tiny insignificant part of a huge super power then as an independent nation. Some of us don't care about influence in the world, some of us just want to be part of our own nation. I don't think many Irishmen actually cared if they sometimes got shipped put to India or Africa, they had they're nation.
Besides ending up in Westminster being represented by a rich Protestant landowner (even after emancipation they were dominant as Irish MPs) sort of drives home your lack of signifigence.

And it did work really. I bet a independant kingdom of Ireland in the 19th century would have been a far far nastier place to live than Ireland in the UK.
I disagree, at least with an Irish kingdom the loyalty wouldn't be called into question as loudly as OTL with Unionist Ulster and the Republican South.
Anyway the rebellions would have been more likely to suceed, as I said at the start.

***EDIT***
Apologies if I come across as very Fenian. I like this sort of topic an awful lot, though I get very "passionate" about it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think its very likely a Irish rebellion in the 19th century would suceed. Britain is just too strong. It'd need a kingdom of Ireland which has really turned Britain against it somehow.

I disagree, as firstly, the folks faraway soon learn to hate you. And secondly, the people on your doorstep are much easier to violently overthrow.
The people far away have no reason to hate the common Irish people to the extent of the Irish leaders though.
The Irish nobles...they've these nasty Papists polluting THEIR island and threatening to overthrow them at any moment. Truly medieval stuff, keep the peons downtrodden and they won't have time to plot.
The British elites meanwhile- Ireland is just another far away, backwards part of the country. They're catholic but what is this? The 1700s? They're no threat.

Reminds me of what the Loyalists said during the War of Independence, that we were much better of as a tiny insignificant part of a huge super power then as an independent nation. Some of us don't care about influence in the world, some of us just want to be part of our own nation. I don't think many Irishmen actually cared if they sometimes got shipped put to India or Africa, they had they're nation.
Besides ending up in Westminster being represented by a rich Protestant landowner (even after emancipation they were dominant as Irish MPs) sort of drives home your lack of signifigence.
Ireland wasn't a tiny insignificant part of a huge nation though. They had around 100 MPs vs England with 460. Considering how much bigger England is that's quite some disproportionate representation. Twice as many as Scotland.
You might say 'England has 4 1/2 times as many MPs, it can beat down Ireland on anything' but then England wasn't a monolithic block. Lots of local interests in there.
And it wasn't just the Irish Anglicans ruling over Ireland now. There were also a lot of other people, many of whom didn't have anything against Ireland.
 
I disagree, as firstly, the folks faraway soon learn to hate you. And secondly, the people on your doorstep are much easier to violently overthrow.

There's a very grim view of the world, or of the character of the Irish that to know them is to hate them;). Could there be a link in with you're belief that peaceful co-existence is impossible?

Reminds me of what the Loyalists said during the War of Independence, that we were much better of as a tiny insignificant part of a huge super power then as an independent nation. Some of us don't care about influence in the world, some of us just want to be part of our own nation. I don't think many Irishmen actually cared if they sometimes got shipped put to India or Africa, they had they're nation.
Besides ending up in Westminster being represented by a rich Protestant landowner (even after emancipation they were dominant as Irish MPs) sort of drives home your lack of signifigence.

The problem is that elements in southern Ireland believe that only applies to them and not those they desire to rule.

I disagree, at least with an Irish kingdom the loyalty wouldn't be called into question as loudly as OTL with Unionist Ulster and the Republican South.
Anyway the rebellions would have been more likely to suceed, as I said at the start.

Do you mean loyalty wouldn't be called into question because no one would dare to disagree with the rulers? The reason there's such a bitter divide currently is because of the extremists on both sides but chiefly the so-called Nationalist side. Both hate the other but only the latter is committed to imperial conquest of the other.


***EDIT***
Apologies if I come across as very Fenian. I like this sort of topic an awful lot, though I get very "passionate" about it.

Ditto. While I'm disappointed that the hard-liners took Ireland into independence I'm quite willing to live with it. What angers me as both a democrat and a nationalist [since my people are their chief victims] is that hard liner bigots refuse to accept people's right to choose. I don't think we can have lasting peace until such evil scum are totally broken.

Steve
 
Top