Talk:List of Irish uprisings

Purpose of page

While this page largely overlaps with Category:Irish rebellions, I think there is justification for having both. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for general points. Specifically in this case:

• not every article in Category:Irish rebellions is about a particular rebellion; not every rebellion has an article in that precise category. In contrast, this list page can be a "one-stop shop".
• it's useful to list them in date order
• the table can be expanded with further columns giving e.g. summary information on alternative names, area affected, protagonist forces, etc

I recognise that the article is currently just a stub. jnestorius^(talk) 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For info, the category is now at Category:Rebellions in Ireland. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Rebellion"?

IMO it is wrong and POV to say the earlier aristocratic and noble risings were "rebellions" in the same category as the later communist ("republican") Grand Orient inspired/initiated revolutions. No clear distinction is given in this article, its complete revisionism to link noble aristocratic Catholic warriors, trying regain their legitimate sovereignty in an ordered society, with later Jacobin, nihilist and Marxist pleb/middle-class rebels. The Condeferates, O'Neill and Desmond events are counter-revolutions. Massive difference. With the Confederates they were even still monarchist in favour of Charles I but just wanted the native aristocracy and non-heretic Church restored. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Communists and Freemasons, eh? Any reliable sources for that? The Proclamation of the Irish Republic says "In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms." This includes the Confederates with the later rebellions; whether this view is right or wrong, it is old enough not to be "revisionist". What source conforms to your alternative analysis? jnestorius^(talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly misplaced to refer to the Nine Years War (Ireland) or the Irish Rebellion of 1641 as rebellions when they were reactions to the English overthrow of traditional power structures. Counter-revolution is a much more historically accurate description of what they were engaging in. As Ciaran Brady noted in his biography of Shane Ó Neill, the English described him as a 'rebel' and his deeds as 'rebellion' as they sought to give the impression that they were the existing order, the ordinary power, in the region (something which they definitely weren't). It was a propaganda word in its day. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it is simplistic and POV to present all the events as comparable chapters in Ireland's history of struggle against the English oppressor. On the one hand, the need for this page is because a lot of people, some influential, have subscribed to such a simplistic analysis; on the other, Wikipedia must do better than them. However, dividing the list in two parts and calling one lot "counter-revolution" is not much of an improvement. A "counter-revolutionary" mean somebody opposed to a revoltion, but a "counter-revolution" is itself a revolution. I'm not sure the term is apt for failed attempts at counter-revolution. If the page is moved to a term less loaded than "rebellion", such a division could be unnecessary, and the prose could handle the nuances. jnestorius^(talk) 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A counter-revolution is a restoration of a legitimate prior existing authority or system, against innovation or usurpation. To portray the leaders of the O'Neills, who were High Kings of Ireland and particularly in Ulster, while Elizabeth Tudors ancestor's were scratching around in their Welsh hills, as some sort of uncouth "rebels" is incredibly POV. The Counter-Reformation, against the Protestant revolt was also a significant part of these, giving it an almost Crusader, Reconquista context (if you further take into consideration the alliance with Habsburg Spain). It doesnt matter that the counter-revolution ultimately failed; the Vendeens, Chouannerie, White Russians failed too.

Hugh Ó Neill was not Che Guevara or Maximilien Robespierre, some self-proclaimed "opressed" bandit spreading anarchy. He was Saint Ferdinand or Charles Martel, countering an infidel usurpation of an ancient, prior existing reality and a legitimist claim to sovereignty. The later revolutions take on an entirely different context, influenced by the French Revolution, they claim that "power comes from the people", ie - the lowest class. This was not a prior existing reality, but an innovation of the basis of society itself. To mix actual rebels, with no lineage like Wolfe Tone, James Connolly, Robert Emmet in with aristocratic legitimists trying to restore their ancient blood and soil rights is very misleading. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely the term "counter-revolution" implies that a revolution had happened in the first place? During the first four conflicts listed here, the English were in the process of "re-conquering" the country; society had changed very little outside the Pale. Thus a more accurate term for those conflicts would be "wars of resistance" or "resistance campaigns". The Irish were resisting the spread of English control. However I'm not sure how to describe the 1641–1652 conflict. ~Asarlaí 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends how its looked at, before in the Plantagenet period, the King of England was technically Lord of much of Ireland but he had very little actual control. The Hiberno-Norman feudal lords and remaining Gaelic kings had the most control but many of the Normans adopted Irish culture, language and laws eventually. The Tudor Invasion led to an early modern centralised state, so right across the island Irish law was no longer in effect, rapid decline in its traditional culture, etc. Also activities beyond the Pale, there was the Plantations (starting with Munster) and across the island a new schismatic Church in revolt was inserted. The early armed risings were attempts to counter these innovations to varying degrees. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Uprising?

I feel that the name of this article is rather problematic. Drawing a distinction between rebellion and counter-revolution is never easy, because it depends on determining the motives of the initiators of such movements.

Hugh O'Neill claimed to be fighting for the Catholic cause in the 1590s, but O'Neill was a Machiavellian type, like James Stuart of Scotland, and it is hard to judge how genuine O'Neill's motives were. Certainly, during the earlier Second Desmond war, O'Neill gave support to the crown forces in their attempt to destroy the Earl of Desmond. Likewise, during the 1588 crisis, some of O'Neill's soldiers were involved in a massacre against some Spanish survivors of a shipwreck.

On the other side, the 1798 rebellion is labeled here as a rebellion but the motives of the ordinary Irish insurgents was a mixed bag. Historians looking at this issue see the ideology of the average insurgent being a strange mix of (revolutionary) Jacobinism and (conservative) Jacobitism. Some insurgents seemed to believe they were fighting a re-run of the Williamite wars, which makes sense in a way when you consider that this war had been the last major war fought in Ireland before the '98.

Overall, I feel it is probably best to rename the article the more neutral ‘List of Irish uprisings’, and thereby avoid any distractions based on terminology. Inchiquin (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. "Uprising" covers all of the events listed here. ~Asarlaí 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I have now renamed the article 'List of Irish Uprisings'.

Thanks, Inchiquin (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissident republicans

Do they and their "campaign" actually merit inclusion in this article as an "uprising". Criminality and terrorising definately, but an actual uprising? I think its hard to justify calling it that. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"War of independence"

Southern Ireland left the UK because Westminster had already decided to partition Ireland in 1914 after the UVF imported rifles and ammunition from Germany. The IRA's terrorist campaign of 1919-1922 was a complete failure and achieved nothing that had not already been decided before World War I. (92.7.31.102 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Pretty much everything you said is incorrect Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose a merger between Irish rebellion and List of Irish uprisings, since both pages are very similar. There's no reason why we shouldn't merge them. PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose For starters, I have reverted the removal of 80% of the content of "Irish Rebellion". And a rebellion is not the same as an uprising. The "Irish rebellion" is an overview of rebellions on the island of Ireland, "List of Irish uprisings" shows a list op uprisings by Irish people anywhere in the world. The Banner talk 23:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)