• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

What if 1798 had succeeded


DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
What if 1798 had succeeded- what kind of a country would we have today? Would it be much different politically, culturally and economically- and would we such things as a 32 county republic, as well as a large population of about 20-40 million (given that our 1840 all-island population was nearly 9 million, against England's 15 million).
Also would Irish be more widespoken than it is at the moment- and would our cities have arrested the decline which they faced in the 19th century (e.g. Dublin been reduced to slums).
And more importantly would we be more mature politically given that our republic would now be 211 years old, with two centuries of experience- than the 87 years we have been independent.
So what do you think, all opinions and thoughts welcome
 


JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
Great question. That's the one I really wish had have been successful, much more so than the one that did.
They had an infinitely greater vision for Ireland than the pederast Pearse or his inheritor Dev.
The United Irishmen were visionaries, and it is tragic to think that within only a few years of their narrow failure, the insidious Act of Union had been signed.
 

Gabha Óir

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,440
Great question. That's the one I really wish had have been successful, much more so than the one that did.
They had an infinitely greater vision for Ireland than the pederast Pearse or his inheritor Dev.
The United Irishmen were visionaries, and it is tragic to think that within only a few years of their narrow failure, the insidious Act of Union had been signed.
And your evidence that Pearse was a pederast? And no need to quote poetry .Has not even Ruth Dud Edfarts already rolled back on that? C'mon Skinner, you're better than that
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
No need to quote his own desires in his own words? He's hung by his own admission.
In any case, the topic is 1798. Neither Wolfe Tone nor any other United Irishmen were penning odes to kissing little boys on the lips.
And their vision for Ireland, as I said, was a much greater one than that of the 1916 crew.
 

DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
Great question. That's the one I really wish had have been successful, much more so than the one that did.
They had an infinitely greater vision for Ireland than the pederast Pearse or his inheritor Dev.
The United Irishmen were visionaries, and it is tragic to think that within only a few years of their narrow failure, the insidious Act of Union had been signed.
Its hard to believe it, but had it succeeded we would have been one of the oldest republics in the world today (after America, France and Poland). The act of union a few years later, and about 10 million+ people immigrating over the course of the 19th century.
What's specifically interesting in regards to the 1798 rebellion is that Napoleon himself spoke with regret that he had attacked Egypt that year instead of sending a large armada under his command to Ireland- had Napoleon's France landed ashore Ireland's coasts- England would pretty much have been f*cked. Like the Spanish armada of course- weather prevented the other landing in 1796
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
It didn't. Get over it.
 

DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
What the hell has been with the weather through the centuries- because France and Spain would probably have succesfully invaded England
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
There's nothing wrong with examining the past, Tommy. It's called history. Nor is there anything wrong with discussing the ramifications of events had they turned out differently. It's called counter-history.
Both are respected academic endeavours, which can lead to illumination and understanding. Though from your posts, I sometimes wonder if you are allergic to such things.
 

Gabha Óir

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,440
No need to quote his own desires in his own words? He's hung by his own admission.
In any case, the topic is 1798. Neither Wolfe Tone nor any other United Irishmen were penning odes to kissing little boys on the lips.
And their vision for Ireland, as I said, was a much greater one than that of the 1916 crew.
But you have no evidence apart from your opinion. The topic is 1798 and you were the one to throw in the fact that Pearse was a pederast. I'd agree his poetry sounds, shall we say a bit dodge, but there is zero evidence that he was a pederast and you know that.

On topic, I'd say there'd be a hell of a lot more prods and a lot less west Brits.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
But you have no evidence apart from your opinion. The topic is 1798 and you were the one to throw in the fact that Pearse was a pederast. I'd agree his poetry sounds, shall we say a bit dodge, but there is zero evidence that he was a pederast and you know that.

On topic, I'd say there'd be a hell of a lot more prods and a lot less west Brits.
On Pearse, his own words are the evidence. A pederast does not need to act on their impulses to be such. And it is self-evident that he had those impulses.
On topic, we could have done with a lot more Prods and a lot less Brits of any type over the intervening years since 1798, I believe.
 

DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
Some things have always struck me while reading about 1798, a lot of ironies such as (a) Would Wolfe Tone have been our first Taosieach, (b) What kind of constitution/ political parties/ system of government would we have, (c) we would never have heard of Daniel O Connell and Charles Stewart Parnell, (d) Irish would probably be spoken by about 25% of a population of about 30 million, instead of about 50,000 today, and (e) we would be a hell of a lot richer and more developed today given that we would have much more previous booms- than just the celtic tiger
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,437
Its hard to believe it, but had it succeeded we would have been one of the oldest republics in the world today (after America, France and Poland). The act of union a few years later, and about 10 million+ people immigrating over the course of the 19th century.
What's specifically interesting in regards to the 1798 rebellion is that Napoleon himself spoke with regret that he had attacked Egypt that year instead of sending a large armada under his command to Ireland- had Napoleon's France landed ashore Ireland's coasts- England would pretty much have been f*cked. Like the Spanish armada of course- weather prevented the other landing in 1796
In order to maintain and keep a happy healthy prosperous population we would have had to upgrade our industries and this would involve competing with Britain, i think it very possible that Britain would have invaded us again, even the US had to grapple with conflict with the UK for several decades after independence. Given the involvement of Irish in the British armed forces and specifically in defeating Napoleon, perhaps one consequence might have been a Napoleonic victory over Britain or maybe even just a less successfull 19thC empire for Britain? When you change one thing you change many things, even a small change in the past produces a huge change in the future which grows bigger the further ahead you go in time (consider for example Australia and the huge contribution of Irish convicts to that land - independence would have meant no convicts, or America - no NE Irish America) so a victory for Ireland in 1798 would have changed the entire history of the world including WW1/WW2). If we could have kept that independence though the language would have remained a language in widespread everyday use and sectarian issues would have melted away.

And more importantly would we be more mature politically
I am not convince being an old Republic has to be better than a new one, new ones are dynamic and less infested with decaying privelege - more idealistic. When it declared independence the US Govt was easily the most advanced in the world and a true beacon of light, under the last few leaders it has been revealed as one giant agglomeration of special interests and corporate interests.

On topic, I'd say there'd be a hell of a lot more prods and a lot less west Brits.
Spot on.
 
Last edited:

DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
If we had a population of 30 million our cities and towns would be much larger as well- more than likely 10 million in Dublin, about 3-4 million in Belfast and Cork, and about 1 million in Galway and Limerick. We would probably have large towns with over 100,000 all over the place- e.g. Waterford, Derry, Sligo, Athlone, Tralee, Ennis, Westport, Navan, Armagh, Coleraine etc
 

DS-09

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
157
In order to maintain and keep a happy healthy prosperous population we would have had to upgrade our industries and this would involve competing with Britain, i think it very possible that Britain would have invaded us again. Given the involvement of Irish in the British armed forces and specifically in defeating Napoleon, perhaps one consequence might have been a Napoleonic victory over Britain or maybe even just a less successfull 19thC empire for Britain? When you change one thing you change many things, even a small change in the past produces a huge change in the future which grows bigger the further ahead you go in time (consider for example Australia and the huge contribution of Irish convicts to that land - independence would have meant no convicts, or America - no NE Irish America), i do believe we would not have seen the last of conflict with Britain had we won in 1798, even the US had to grapple with conflict with the UK for several decades after independence. If we could have kept that independence though the language would have remained a language in widespread everyday use and sectarian issues would have melted away.



I am not convince being an old Republic has to be better than a new one, new ones are dynamic and less infested with decaying privelege - more idealistic. When it declared independence the US Govt was easily the most advanced in the world and a true beacon of light, under the last few leaders it has been revealed as one giant agglomeration of special interests and corporate interests.



Spot on.
But we could have upgraded our industries- including industries that declined throughout the 19th century like the Linen and cotton industries. As for another invasion by Britain, two things could have happnened- Ireland developed a navy and army of its own, powerful enough to protect its own shores- and an alliance with France and America could have helped us as well. We have had a smaller diaspora- but at least we'd have a large population here living in Ireland. Am not to sure about the language- put that one up to get other views on what might have been.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
There's nothing wrong with examining the past, Tommy. It's called history. Nor is there anything wrong with discussing the ramifications of events had they turned out differently. It's called counter-history.
Both are respected academic endeavours, which can lead to illumination and understanding. Though from your posts, I sometimes wonder if you are allergic to such things.
I am all for examining the past. But Irish republicans are so anal about it it is rediculous. They can hardly go by an entire week here without going into nasal gazing about 'what is . . . had succeeded?' We have had threads asking what would have happened if 1848 had succeeded, if 1916 had succeeded militarily, if partition had not happened, if the treaty hadn't been signed, etc etc etc? It seems as though some republicans are trapped in the past, constantly re-living moments and dreaming about what might have been. It is always the same narrow list of clichéd dates and issues. Debating the past is great. But getting perpetually stuck in it, in some sort of mental groundhog day going over 1798, 1848, 1867, 1916, 1922, 1969 etc endlessly is ridiculous. They are like the ever pointless 'will be have a united Ireland by [fill in year]?' threads that keep cropping up.

If what we had were serious intellectual discussions on a range of topics that would be one thing. But these threads are little more than the latest round of republican masturbation, as some posters try to get themselves all excited over their latest fantasy thread. It is often said that Irish Republicanism lives in a time-warp and spends its time re-analysing the past rather than dealing with the present. The ever present 'what if?' threads are an example of it.
 

Cogadh

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
272
We wouldn't have a giant príck as some kind of national monument even if it is somehow apt.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
I am all for examining the past. But Irish republicans are so anal about it it is rediculous...
You may have failed to notice that the thread was started by a Soldier of Destiny and contributed to by a non-Republican Nationalist, myself.
 

Cogadh

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
272
I am all for examining the past. But Irish republicans are so anal about it it is rediculous. They can hardly go by an entire week here without going into nasal gazing about 'what is . . . had succeeded?' We have had threads asking what would have happened if 1848 had succeeded, if 1916 had succeeded militarily, if partition had not happened, if the treaty hadn't been signed, etc etc etc? It seems as though some republicans are trapped in the past, constantly re-living moments and dreaming about what might have been. It is always the same narrow list of clichéd dates and issues. Debating the past is great. But getting perpetually stuck in it, in some sort of mental groundhog day going over 1798, 1848, 1867, 1916, 1922, 1969 etc endlessly is ridiculous. They are like the ever pointless 'will be have a united Ireland by [fill in year]?' threads that keep cropping up.

If what we had were serious intellectual discussions on a range of topics that would be one thing. But these threads are little more than the latest round of republican masturbation, as some posters try to get themselves all excited over their latest fantasy thread. It is often said that Irish Republicanism lives in a time-warp and spends its time re-analysing the past rather than dealing with the present. The ever present 'what if?' threads are an example of it.
Says the fella whose wet dream is to imagine what if there had been no executions in 1916 and we remained in the loving embrace of her majesty the Queen of England (go on tell me how that is not her correct title).
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top