Successful Irish Rebellion In 1798
- Thread starter mspence
- Start date
I can't see the US getting involved as that would mean war with Britain, which would be bad for them.
Its possible that the French could secure control of Ireland if a hell of a lot of things had gone their way but that would have basically required Britain being crippled and quite possibly invaded itself. Apart from anything else Ireland's geographical position would have made it as fatal to Britain as Britain's position was crippling to the Dutch republic in the Anglo-Dutch wars. If not more so as it stands astride the vital maritime routes and Britain doesn't have land trade options as the Dutch had. Hence the cost of an Ireland under French control - which would be necessary for Britain not to regain control - would be the destruction of British economic power and probably the de facto if not fully de jure ending of Britain as an independent state.
First chapter of The Napoleon options by Jonathan North/chapter written by Paddy Griffith-it is anthology,not book/
answered that question.
French would win,if they land all of their forces - which was prevented,becouse noble british noble buyed captain Fustel,who for that do not lead french ships to Ireland ports.
Result would be lasting peace with free Ireland,and no Napoleon.
Good for everybody except Poland.
Doubt the result would be lasting peace because:
a) That would be an unstable position. Even if your assuming Louis XIV levels of oppression and brutality it would take a lot of resources to hold onto Britain.
b) The French republic would still be in conflict with the conservative regimes on the continent even with Britain conquered.
Sorry for being unclear.I am talking about french taking only Ireland with 10.000 troops when brits have no soldiers there,and then making peace.
Which would happened if brits do not buy one captain.
England would never be occupied in this scenario.
If England found countries to join their coalition.With France not invading anybody,fat chance for that.Why austrians or russians should die for England?
Prussia was England attack dog,but alone they do notching - or,even maybe lead to next 7th year war,when Austria and Russia would gand on prussians.
So you say the dynasties who have already lost land to the French republicans and are, especially Austria, angry at the murder of its princess, willing to accept the continued existence and unsettling presence of the republic. Especially ironic viewpoint given your well known hostility toward anything that isn't a reactionary aristocracy.
Plus that does lead to the question of whether the French fleet, which is in a mess after the revolution can maintain access to Ireland in the face of a more numerous and skilled RN with closer bases.
1.Those reactionary aristocracy cared mostly about themselves.Both Austria and Russia have interests in germany and central Europe,not France or Ireland.So you say the dynasties who have already lost land to the French republicans and are, especially Austria, angry at the murder of its princess, willing to accept the continued existence and unsettling presence of the republic. Especially ironic viewpoint given your well known hostility toward anything that isn't a reactionary aristocracy.
Plus that does lead to the question of whether the French fleet, which is in a mess after the revolution can maintain access to Ireland in the face of a more numerous and skilled RN with closer bases.
2.French,after delivering 10.000 troops to Ireland,do not need to deliver anything more.They have food and recruits there,enough to crush any british army send there.
P.S Poor victim of public school and TV,Aristocrats ALMOST NEVER were reactionary/normal people,i mean/ - they were,and what of them left still are part of cabal which lead us to ENLIGHTENED GULAG.
You think 10,000 French troops can hold Ireland for long without supplies or real support? They will attract some manpower from Irish Catholics - although possibly not anything like your expecting given the nature of the French regime at this point - but without training and equipment they will be of little benefit and will be a continual drain in terms of supplies.
I love the irony of you contradicting yourself.
Especially given that Austria especially also had interests in locations like Belgium, western Germany and N Italy which had already being seized or threatened by the republic. Your one of those people who suffer from what I call the god delusion. That your an Abrahamic type deity that can warp reality to your desires. No your not.
. There's a short story by the late Canadian writer Gordon R Dickson, in his "Ancient my Enemy" collection, called Tiger Green. I would suggest you read it but I doubt you have the capacity to understand it. 1.Those reactionary aristocracy cared mostly about themselves.Both Austria and Russia have interests in germany and central Europe,not France or Ireland.So you say the dynasties who have already lost land to the French republicans and are, especially Austria, angry at the murder of its princess, willing to accept the continued existence and unsettling presence of the republic. Especially ironic viewpoint given your well known hostility toward anything that isn't a reactionary aristocracy.
Plus that does lead to the question of whether the French fleet, which is in a mess after the revolution can maintain access to Ireland in the face of a more numerous and skilled RN with closer bases.
2.French,after delivering 10.000 troops to Ireland,do not need to deliver anything more.They have food and recruits there,enough to crush any british army send there.
P.S Poor victim of public school and TV,Aristocrats ALMOST NEVER were reactionary/normal people,i mean/ - they were,and what of them left still are part of cabal which lead us to ENLIGHTENED GULAG.
You think 10,000 French troops can hold Ireland for long without supplies or real support? They will attract some manpower from Irish Catholics - although possibly not anything like your expecting given the nature of the French regime at this point - but without training and equipment they will be of little benefit and will be a continual drain in terms of supplies.
I love the irony of you contradicting yourself.
Your one of those people who suffer from what I call the god delusion. That your an Abrahamic type deity that can warp reality to your desires. No your not.
1.Yep.Irish with pikes in OTL was capable of winning few battles,before they lost.
And remember,tat brits do not have big standing army.
2.So Republic would not threaten Austria any more.In their interest would be fighting prussians,not french.
3.Poor victim of leftist propaganda.You hate God so much,that you become unable to undarstandt reality.
But,if you still have one brain cell working,you could read "The Victory of Reason" by Rodney Stark.
Probably too late for you.
Weapons and gunpowder could be made there.
And brits do not have friends there,recruits would go to french.Unless they get mad and start burning churches,but i doubt that even french could be that stupid.
Again you contradict yourself.
Britain could and did mobilize when necessary tens of thousands of men and had about 80,000 in Wellingtons peninsular army by the end of the war there. Similarly like the other great powers they committed to maintaining an army of 150,000 men in France after 1815 for a number of years. For a vital geographical position like Ireland this would be a top priority for Britain.
By this time there were substantial numbers of Protestants in Ireland, mainly but not solely in the north. Also don't be certain that a number of the Catholics would be happy with peasant mobs looting everything or republican French seeking to export their ideas.
Possibly some muskets might be made in Ireland but canon would be a far more difficult task and gunpowder is a big issue.
Buba
A total creep
If need be Britain can hire armies in Germany. Maybe Scandinavia. Russia also a possibility.
At its peak, in 1813, the British Army numbered 250k men.
And that's volunteers, men signing up for at east seven years with knowledge that they will be sent overseas. For service in Ireland Britain could raise militia by conscription. Plus volunteer fencibles.
Some 80k+15k = over 100 hundred thousand men.
Problems with replacements became significant only around ... 1813.
At its peak, in 1813, the British Army numbered 250k men.
And that's volunteers, men signing up for at east seven years with knowledge that they will be sent overseas. For service in Ireland Britain could raise militia by conscription. Plus volunteer fencibles.
Some 80k+15k = over 100 hundred thousand men.
Problems with replacements became significant only around ... 1813.
Last edited:
IIRC during the invasion scale of 1805 prior to Nelson's victory at Trafalgar Britain had a potential number of men under arms somewhere in the region of 500,000. Admittedly they were spread all over the country and a lot of them would be relatively poorly trained and equipped militia but if Napoleon had had the brief period of control of the Channel he desired and gotten most of his main army of the time across it could have meant an early ending to his empire and a lot less bloodshed in the following decade.
That depends on how many get ashore and in what condition. There's a notorious incident that year on 20th July when Napoleon ordered an exercise by some of his forces despite a gale offshore. Checking The Campaigns of Napoleon, by David Chandler, p323. Napoleon ordered the Boulogne naval flotillas to pass in review before him. Admiral Bruix was dismissed and exiled to Holland and a cowered Vice-Admiral Magon issued the orders. More that 20 gun sloops filled with soldiers and sailors were flung ashore and over 2,000 men died.
Note those were actual ships, albeit possibly badly overloaded. IIRC a fair amount of the expidition was to be carried on rafts towed behind other ships. As such even if the French navy is able to win a battle with the Channel Fleet to reach the region their then going to be spread thin trying to escort a slow and cumbersome convoy and any ships the RN can get among that convoy would cause chaos. Even bad weather could cause some disasters.
In this the infantry might not faire too badly as a man can discard heavy equipment such as boots and his musket and backpack and swim and there's a decent chance he might be allowed on another raft or ship he can reach. That's not going to be an option for a horse, even if not tied up and hence unable to avoid going down with any transport. Even worse for supplies, and most of all for cannon, cannonballs and other heavy equipment. As such if there is any bad weather even without RN interference the force is likely to lose a fair number of men, with other probably being landed wet, tired and without a good amount of their equipment while the horses - for cavalry, cannon and supply wagons - and the artillery, gunpowder and the like being even worse. Until they capture a port and their likely to be defended then both the initial forces and later supplies are going to have to be landed on a beach, which is going to be slow and cumbersome even when the weather and waves aren't hostile.
The most likely possibility for such an operation is that the French naval plan works a bit better than OTL. The 1st part worked with the French Med fleet managing to elude the blockade, link up with the Spanish and then sail to the Caribbean. This lured Nelson's Med fleet across to there as well. The enemy fleet was supposed to get back across the Atlantic, sail to link up with the French ships at Brest and then win control of the channel escort the invasion force over. OTL the cumbersome sailing of the allied fleet meant that it only made it back to Seville - or possibly Cadiz I can't remember and Nelson's force returned in time to crush it at Trafalgar. If TTL he's delayed for some reason, say hearing a false report that the French have sailed further west or possibly he's struck with fever then sooner or later he, or his deputy Admiral Collingwood is going to return and combined with everything else the RN will be committing to the battle the enemy forces are likely to be smashed. At which point the emperor and his army will be cut off from any further supplies or from retreating to France. If he hasn't forced some British submission by that time he's almost certain never to.
In which case possibly Napoleon could escape by small boat across the Channel. Its a much shorter trip than his escape from Egypt after his fleet there was destroyed but that again means abandoning an army and this time a much bigger one that will be a big military and prestige loss. However the RN will be on the look out for such an operation and he could well get caught.
Either way once its heard that Napoleon and his army have been trapped expect Austria to march. Russia will also do so although they have more distance to cover. Prussia might also throw its hat in the ring as well. While Napoleon is isolated in Britain what does anyone in charge in France do? Given his paranoia would there be a delay before any attempt to mobisile more troops and prepare to defend France because commanders left behind fear that might be seen as some sort of coup. Even if they don't have much in the way of forces can they assemble and how many of Napoleon's allies and puppets stay loyal in such a position. Assuming the emperor gets back back safely his prestige and influence might be able to assemble a new army but its quality and morale could be pretty weak.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Assuming the French Revolution still happens ?
Well,it was my repetition of your sad joke about reactionary aristocracy.Those dudes were Enlightened,and that is why France fall - only peasant fought for King.
And, England could mobilize army - but who would pay for that? When France only need to send some fast ships with guns and maybe muskets.Food and recruits would be there.
It would be bloody war without hope for quick victory.England would not go for it,if France do not attack neighbours anymore.
Yes,they could.Problem is - it still do not bring quick victory.They could,at best,retake part of island.
P.S in mentioned article Free Ireland would be not catholic state,so local protestants would support it,too.
One of them in this scenario even becomed irish President !
Note the date and the OP which assumes that the French intervention succeeds. Or are you assuming that France somehow avoids the revolution - say the clergy and aristocracy aren't such suicidal dickheads and give up some of their tax exemptions - and the Irish rising still occurs and is supported by Bourbon France?
In the latter case the Irish revolt was in part inspired by the French revolution IIRC - that's why it had support from moderate elements in both the Protestant and Catholic populations so it could get even less support here. Also it rather assumes that Britain and France are at war that the French could have forces ready to intervene - and get them past the RN - before the uprising is crushed. Could Bourbon France afford another war with Britain at this period?