Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion on provisional government
Irish nationalist movement
Importance of strategy and tactics in war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclusion on provisional government
Another contributing factor that suggests that poor leadership was the main reason for the failure of the rising was due to the fact that the rebels had no internal support- the IRB failed to gain the support from the rest of Ireland that they required for support. There were few supporters as it was, most of which were from Dublin, this meaning that there was no support from the remainder of Ireland, either due to them listening to Macneill or the fact they didn’t actually know about it. The rebels required a large force of men in order to have any chance success. The difficulty facing the leaders of the rebellion was how to organise a mass up rise without giving away the secrecy, as in previous rising such as 1798. The military council decided …show more content…
The plan did not exactly run smoothly. The original date of the Rising was changed from Easter Sunday to Easter Monday after last minute hesitations by the military council, resulting in a commotion of conflicting orders. This postponement of the Rising was MacNeill’s response to the failed arms shipment. He sent new orders across Ireland to inform Volunteer units that the rebellion was postponed and had a coded message published in the Dublin Sunday Independent. This caused confusion amongst many of the volunteers and some even failed to get the messages at all, turning up on Easter Sunday only to find that no rebellion was taking place. Some thought that it had been cancelled altogether. One would-be rebel later recalled his confusion, “There were orders cancelling the Sunday manoeuvres...so I gathered the Rising was not to be” . He was not alone in his confusion, for it was replicated across Dublin and indeed across Ireland. Thomas Clarke was angered by MacNeill’s actions and reportedly said, “MacNeill has ruined everything- all our plans. I feel like going away to cry” . Furthermore, before the Rising Pearce expressed his frustration at another strategic problem, “the ammunition landed is useless. It consists of …show more content…
We can see that poor organisation was overall very important in bringing about the failure of the 1916 Easter Rising amongst other factors. The failure of the Aud to land arms was also critical in bringing about the Rising’s failure however it has to be considered whether the Rising actually had a chance of defeating the might of the British Empire in the first place. There is evidence to suggest that the rebel leaders intended to die as martyrs however it is clear that this intention was not shared amongst them all and was mainly emphasised by Pearce himself. Furthermore, it can be seen that perhaps the Rising was a strategic victory in terms of the support it brought to the republican movement although the extents of this falls in to doubt when looking conscription. Such a view is furthered by historian Richard English who believes that, “the executions helped to achieve what the rebellion itself had not- an intensification of nationalist feeling... they produced sympathy for that rebel cause which they were supposed to undermine” . As an analyst of political violence who shows no clear allegiance towards the rebels’ cause, his view is more reliable than Barry’s. The quotes show that many of the rebels knew they couldn’t win militarily, but knew the executions would increase support for their cause. The series of
Overall McPherson’s reasons for the soldiers motivations were clear and concise, easy to follow and understand allowing for easy interpretation of the book. McPherson also includes multiple quotes from various letters and diary entries to support his statements which gives his statements credibility. The reasons for motivation presented in the book were convincing and were supported by numerous quotes.
Consistancy in Britain's Policy in Ireland in the Period 1798-1921 Social policy – in the 1830’s, Ireland had the best health Land and Economic policy – land issues were ignored until 1870: - first land Act – irrelevant - second land Act – political rather than economic - Wyndham Act – the government was becoming less and less convinced that property was the ‘bedrock of civilisation’ – it was the product of a shift in mentality. - 1890’s – HUGE economic reforms Political policy – consistently ignored or opposed any nationalist movement Concession/coercion – always a combination. However, there were more concessions as the century wore on. Religious policy – after 1829, the government was always prepared to grant religious reforms – e.g. the abolition of tithes in the 30’s, the Maynooth Grant and Charitable Bequests Act in the 1840’s, the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869.
The petition charged McClellan with incompetence, as evidenced by the failure of his campaigns and their heavy losses, “And also because by recent disobedience to superior orders and inactivity he has twice imperiled the army commanded by General Pope, and while he continues to command will daily hazard the f...
Evaluate the relative importance of two of the following as factors prompting Americans to rebel in 1776.
In his short story, O’Brien unravels step by step the irony in the double meaning of truth, implied in this first statement, “This is true”, to the reader which is then woven through the entire story. By trying to characterize what constitutes a true war story, but never really achieving this goal, the true irony of his short story is revealed. Even though in some instances giving away his opinion explicitly, the sheer contradiction of honesty and reality becomes even more visible in an implicit way by following O’Brien’s explanations throughout the story while he deconstructs his first statement. The incongruity between his first statement and what is actually shown in his examples does not need any explicit statements to drive home his message.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
During the First World War, Britain introduced conscription for the first time to massively increase the input of power of their army had and forced men aged 16-19 to serve in the army. However, a group of roughly 16,800 men refused to serve. These groups of people were called Conscientious Objectors; sometimes called COs or Conchies; and many were very religious and believed that thou shall not kill as it is a sin in the Bible. This was a main point that most Conscientious Objectors did not take any part during the First World War as they believed it would result in pointless bloodshed. The Government’s and general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors was that Conscientious Objectors were unpatriotic cowards and the Government used propaganda to manipulate the general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors by showing that they would not aid the Britain and were weak. As a result they were treated harshly. The Government made being a Conscientious Objector very hard and difficult as they would enforce tribunals which consisted of ex- military officials who were biased as they were for the First World War. Therefore, these people gave huge prison sentences to Conscientious Objectors as a scare tactic to reduce the number of Conscientious Objectors. Historians use interpretations to show the message behind each source to see it’s reliable or useful. Also this is done to see if the source itself is a primary or secondary interpretation which shows if the source’s view and meaning is from the author of sources (primary interpretation) or giving a generalised views on people who were there at the time (secondary interpretation).
Thesis: During World War 1, the amount of Australians enlisting decreased due to the realisation that war was not as it was portrayed to the public
"A general who wears down 180,000 of the enemy by expending 400,000 men...has something to answer for." This idea from military historian C.E.W Bean is the main line of argument from traditionalist historians. They represent General Douglas Haig, British Commander-in-Chief of the BEF from 1915 to the end of the war in 1918, in a critical, damning light: a hopelessly incompetent general with a willingness to sacrifice the men of Britain for a few metres of muddy ground. On the converse of this interpretation is a revisionist perspective of Haig as a caring ‘architect of victory’, bringing long-term achievements with his perceptive strategies. With an examination of these two seemingly polemic perspectives and primary evidence, judgement, albeit a complex and multifaceted one, can be reached on both these smaller debates and of Douglas Haig’s role in World War One: villain or vanquisher?
There were many rebellions in the United States history, some peaceful and some violent. Shays' Rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 are examples of two brutal rebellions that led to the deaths of many innocent people. Rebellions can develop due to many conditions including unfair laws, in this case the raised taxation of Whiskey, unfair treatment, and disagreements over sensitive topics. The Shays' Rebellion showed the Articles of Confederation was too weak, while the Whiskey Rebellion proved the Constitution to be a strong framework of government.
war, ‘normal rules don’t apply’. He backs this up by pointing out that it was enemy who ‘tore up the
As the American Revolution ended and Americans freed themselves from the British, many Americans were left without money. After the American Revolution was won, the Founding Fathers including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and lastly our first president George Washington helped create a new government, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were the first national government. This government had plenty of weaknesses, such as the need for unanimous votes, no direct power to tax, no ability to raise troops, and they were hard to amend. Along with those weaknesses came several rebellions
On Easter Monday of 1916, the first shot of the Easter Uprising was fired. Six members of the Irish Citizen Army shot a policeman on the streets of Dublin in the head. This was the start of a new era, an era where Ireland would be free. Pearse, the Commander in chief of the Irish Citizen Army, and Connolly, the leader of the Dublin division, led the main body of troops through Dublin to the General Post Office. The G.P.A. became the rebels’ headquarters for the six-day battle against the British Army. There were heavy casualties on the British side, but the Irish were still unsuccessful. There statement was made though, and they surrendered on the following Sunday. Two thousand people were arrested that day, and the leaders
President Johnson’s in-group avoided reconsidering its escalation policy when time and again the expectation on which they based their decisions turned out to be wrong. The policy-makers avoided the discussion of prior decisions and kept inventing new rationalizations to recommit themselves into defeating the North Vietnamese.
...e gun, it seemed, the greater the owner‘s pride in it.” (McCullough 33) The Continental army certainly did not look like an army yet these people were brought together in this fight for freedom and prevailed even winning the support of Americans who had no hope the British would be defeated.” Merchant Erving had sided with the Loyalists primarily because he thought the rebellion would fail. But the success of Washington‘s army at Boston had changed his mind as it had for many” (McCullough 108). The reader must comprehend the power of this accomplishment for the rag-tag army. “Especially for those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning-how often circumstance, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference- the outcome seemed little short of a miracle.” (McCullough 294).