"Irish 1916 rebellion figures?" Topic

My Searches here aren't producing much in the way of results; can anyone recommend manufacturers of 25mm Irish rebels for the 1916-1923 era? I have some figures from Musketeer and also have converted a lot of gangster types; what I could use most are Irish Volunteer/Irish Free State "regulars" , in military-style uniforms and slouch hats, to sprinkle among my civilian-garb figures and serve as officers.

I've also been alerted to cannon Fodder figures and will be checking them out directly.

Links or referrals? Thanks!

Could Boer War miniatures be used. At least you could use their slouch hats for conversion?

Boers, good idea! Maybe Boer heads on British regulars and turn up the hat brims?

The partisan angle is also good -- I think there are some usable figures out there. The group I play these skirmish games with incorporates some of these types.

Check out the Anglian SCW range, now available from Empress, there are some figures there that shoud be useable.

I think TMPer Gallowglass has something for this. Try contacting him.

Steve

I don't think their website shows any of the figures in question, but Perry's Mafeking range contains figures in upturned slouch hats. I think TMPer Bob and his dog has some pictures posted.

Hopefully Gallowglass will be along soon with some good suggestions

Gripping Beast do 28mm seperate heads for their WW1 Gallipoli range which includes slouch hats which might do for head conversions.

Might help:
link
Good Luck,
Peter

coggon is right. I have those packs and there is one or two figures that are almost spot on. The rest are in shirts and coats and are more far off the topic

>I think TMPer Gallowglass has something for this. Try contacting him.

Steve

+1 to that -- I have seen those figures and IIRC they are VERY nice.

w.

As you mentioned, CannonFodder miniatures in Australia have a range of Irish 1920 figuresm including Black and Tans, Auxies and IRA. These may be OOP, but they nmight cast to order.
They also have 1920 German Freikorps figures that would work too.
I have made Auxies from Renegade Highlanders, wrapping putty around the Glengary caps to make Tams.

You can aslo do a TMP search on key words like "Ireland". This topic comes up occasionally. You can get surprising matches from Call of Cthulhu range, amng others.

If you do the War of Independence, you can game assassinations of unarmed policemen, or the shooting of suspected "touts" or even armed Special Branch "G Men", or the murder of suspected Republican sympathisers, or have the Tans see how many houses they can burn down in a given time, with a modifier for how drunk they are.
If you game the Civil War you can do all of this, but use Free State troops instead of Tans.
Sounds like fun!

if you want the volunteers uniform with the "Cronje" slouch hat like

link

or the citizen army who I've always associated more with the turned up slouch hat:

link
link

your best bet would probably be the Boer war British with slouch hats:

link

after 1922 the free state army had caps so if you are going to so the civil war you need something that looks like:

picture
link
picture

other info that might be useful
link
link

I have to agree with Chouan on my lack of interest in gaming either the dirty guerrilla campaign that was the war of Independence or the bloody tragedy that was the civil war however. As an Irishman I am thankful for the sacrifices made to win the freedom I enjoy, I just have no desire to recreate them on the tabletop but then I'm sure many Spaniards feel the same way about the SCW etc.

I've been trying to get this set up myself. Check out Perry Bros. Mafeking guys, add some Foundry Boers, some Brit. WWI dismounted cavalry. Most Irish Vol. were in civilian clothes with some military equipment like puttees and belts and haversack. The official I.V. uniform was identical to the British 1902 service dress but in a greyish green color. The Musketeer Brit officer running with pistol drawn could be Edward Daley or Eamonn Ceannt if you painted his uniform right. The ideal would be WWI Brits without the web gear, but I haven't found that.
As for the "morality" question of gaming this era -its rather selective outrage. Someone always has a smarmy comment about the Irish war, yet the attacks on the civilian population of Boers never stops anyone from gaming that. Few feel moral indignation when gaming Eastern Front WWII or the SCW. People are even gaming Iraq.

Black Tree Boers could be used, if you swap out a few heads with cloth civilian caps. Brit SD caps would be appropriate for IV if painted greenish. What rules are you thinking off? I've been trying to make some. Urban skirmish, IV are unseen until Brits roll for observation. That way the Brit patrol could bast away at empty windows while two or three Vollies pop away at them like at Mount St Bridge.

Hey, there are a lot of great leads and suggestions here -- thanks muchly! Thanks even to the naysayers; I understand your qualms and unease. All I can offer in defense is to say that our group's games are fantasy scenarios of a more regular warfare type -- guerilla-style skirmishing, regulars and paramilitaries vs. irregulars -- not the brutal assassinations and atrocities that sadly mark so much of this conflict. And as pointed out, is there ANY war that isn't marked by much cruelty and many odious, bloody deeds? Yet we still play our "wargames." We all decide what we will and will not accept as suitable subject matter for this recreational pastime of ours.

What set of rules do you use for this game? I would love to know! I've read Morgan LLywrlyn's series and also thought it would make a graet game. I will even trade you some old 1983 TSR gangster mini's for the rules!

"As for the "morality" question of gaming this era -its rather selective outrage. Someone always has a smarmy comment about the Irish war, yet the attacks on the civilian population of Boers never stops anyone from gaming that. Few feel moral indignation when gaming Eastern Front WWII or the SCW. People are even gaming Iraq."

Can I assume that it is my post that attracts your oprobium about "smarmy comments". I didn't realise that I was making a "smarmy comment", I thought that I was questioning gaming a conflict that was, almost wholly, made up of murder and counter murder, atrocity and counter atrocity, with little in the way of "war" to recommend it. I'm aware that people game Iraq. I doubt the stability of the moral compass of those gamers as well.
Tell me more about the "attacks on the civilian population of Boers", I wasn't aware of any.

Read, then of Emily Hobhouse and the Committee for South African Women and Children. She reported to Parliament in June 1901. Read, too, the Parliamentary debates in March through August regarding the concentration camps (that phrase is the words of the MPs).
Gamers and posters may hold whatever views you want on the Irish war but surely we can admit that this type of rancor is particular to postings on the war in Ireland. Barely a wisp of it in threads on the SCW or the RCW.

Chouan, if you read a bit of Irish history and you wll find out that there were actual battles fought. The Easter Rising/General Post Office (GPO) seige was Irish vs. English, while the Battle of the Four Courts was a cival war.
These alone would be perfect for gaming. Do a Google search, including images, and you will be amazed.
PLEASE do not think I am talking down to you. Unless a person studies/reads about a certain period of history, you just do not know all the facts. I will be the first to admit it. I love all historical games, but my knowledge is very limited to only a few areas.
But gaming is about having fun. You can even make up a battle if you want. A little knowledge and a lot of imagination goes a long way.
Once again, I am not trying to insult anybody, I just want people to have fun. Isn't that what gaming is all about?
Harrington

Despite reading Irish History as part of my first degree, and teaching Irish History, among other topics now for a living, I don't in any way feel that you're talking down to me. I'm aware that the siege of the GPO, and the other centres seized by the IRA, and the siege of the Four Courts by the forces of the Free State, could be seen as battles. But these are essentially the only examples. Even then, having visited both sites, I would argue that none would be suited to gaming, on a table at least. One side shells the buildings occupied by the other until they surrender, or until they break out and then surrender. Hardly perfect for gaming. The "Battle of Kilmallock", could be described loosely as a battle. But both sides were reluctant to commit troops to a conflict in which their men would be at risk of suffering casualties. I worked with the grandson of the Republican commander, Liam Deasy, who told me that the prime concern at that stage of the conflict was minimising casualties. This would, I beleive, make gaming such battles less than interesting.
The rest of the conflict consisted of columns of soldiers or policemen trying to find guerillas, and committing atrocities on those captured or the civil population, or murders and assassinations, either by or to the forces of "authority" be they Irish or British.

"Read, then of Emily Hobhouse and the Committee for South African Women and Children. She reported to Parliament in June 1901. Read, too, the Parliamentary debates in March through August regarding the concentration camps (that phrase is the words of the MPs)."

Yes. I've read them. Look also at her background and her agenda. Besides, you're applying a later 20th century meaning to the expression Concentration Camps, a meaning that did not apply at the time. The camps were NOT concentration camps in the sense that you're implying. They were camps in which civilians were concentrated in order to prevent them from supplying Boer Commandoes, and carrying out guerilla attacks. In any case, putting Boer civilians into camps is not quite "the attacks on the civilian population of Boers" that you describe.

The rancour that you describe, is perhaps because Ireland's conflict was between essentially English speaking people, and English speaking gamers are more likely to be connected in some way to one side or other. This is less likely in the SCW or the RCW. Besides, both of these conflicts had proper "battles" in abundance, although there was guerilla fighting as well.

True, Chouan, the GPO and Four Courts may not seem the best ideas for gaming, but I like using the "what if?" possibilities. What if there were less cannon action and the Rebels had a stronger force? What if they even had a small contingent behind the English, so that the English had to watch their backs? Same with the Four Courts. I've never really liked exact accuracey in historical games. Battles can be changed a bit or tweaked as the players see fit.
As for actually building the terrain/buildings it would take for this, well that is another thing. After looking at some pics of the events, I shake my head at the time that would be spent on construction!
But I still think there is some good gaming here. Just sit back and think what if….?
Harrington

No need for the "what ifs" in my opinion. 4th battalion IRA in the South Dublin Union -a whole complex of streets, lanes, dormitories and outbuildings all baricaded. Brits advance down Bow street into fire, or cross Rialto bridge to flank the position. Brits advance across open ground to reach the buildings, but must still clear out alleys and laneways. Skirmish games like this are played all the time.
How about 5th battalion IRA operating in Ashbourne outside Dublin. 45 IRA attempt to take the police barracks as the peelers are setting up baricades. While besieging the barracks, a motor column of 60 police reinforcements arrives. Small numbers of IRA reinforcements arrive later. In this game both players need to gain real advantage before the other gets reinforced. Forget the GPO, unless one enjoys gaming the shelling of a building.

NY Irish, I love your idea about Ashbourne. Great game scenario! That's what I'm talking about, although I still like the "what if's?". I also agree about the shelling of the GPO as a game. Take away the shelling, or at least limit it, and you have a real game.
The Irish Rebellion really was mostly skirmishes, which I prefer. I hate having to have units and all the very small details they involve. Just look at most "modern" wars. Unless heavy artillery/aircraft, etc are invloved, wars are won street by street, alley by alley, or building by building. That is war. Cannons and bombs are tacticts used to minimize friendly casulaties.
I do believe we are having an intersesting conversation on this subject without any problems. I myself am part Irish and have always been on the side for a complete and free Ireland. But I am also part Native American, and have no problem with games of Cowboys & Indians, playing either side. A game is just a game, right?
But this is an interesting subject. However, my forte is miniature terrain making, which poses many daunting tasks for such a game. I prefer 1/72 scale. Great for table space, but damned hard and long to reproduce! Glad I make so many generic buildings.
Sorry if I seem to rant on this subject of The Irish Rebellion. If anyone wants me to shut up, I will, wit no offence taken (learned that after living with my Irish lass for 18 years).
Harrington

I suppose that you can spice up the action in South Dublin by having hapless inhabitants fleeing their homes, trying to avoid being shot by either side. Perhaps civilian casualties might reduce one's victory points? Or perhaps not. You can also add the odd psychotic British officer suffering from shell shock murdering passers by that he's taken a dislike to, for extra authenticity.
As a side issue, Harrington, I didn't realise that the Crown Forces in Ireland were English. I thought that they were English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh. The RIC was, of course, entirely Irish, until they began recruiting at large in Britain in 1920. Even then, most of the RIC Reserves (called "Black and Tans") raised in this way were Scots. Perhaps I should read more.
I'm glad that you're in favour of a free and complete Ireland. As far as I know it is. Both the Republic and the North are free, with freely elected democratic forms of government. The Good Friday Agreement, voted for by an overwhelming majority in both the Republic, in a free plebiscite, and the North by an equally free plebiscite, established that, as far as the Republic is concerned, the Irish Republic is now "complete", and was ratified by the Dail. The desire for annexation of the North is no longer in the Irish Constitution. This would suggest to me that the Republic is indeed "complete", as I'm unaware that the North has any plans of annexation of the Republic.

Thus far our lesson for the 4th of February…
You are right, Harrington, about the terrain. Even for a skirmish game- which these would be- would take a good number of buildings, many of them 4 stories. The placing of figs in each floor would be a pain. I've seen pictures of a VBCW game that depict a landing in a seaport town -lots of buildings, clearly lots of time and money, but it looks great. And where do you store a few blocks worth of 28mm Dublin?

Chouan, I like your idea of civillians affecting victory points. Great idea! My idea would have been morale points for civillians, which could go either way. Hard to support your own when they are shooting at you.
The shell shock could also work both ways, on both sides, even including civillians. Damned sure it's that way in real life.
As for the Good Friday Agreement, I was VERY HAPPY when that that happened. But I work in a restaurant in the Florida Keys, and when I introduce to myself to Irish customers as "Shawn," they ask me about Irish heritage. Most of them make a point of telling me that they are from Northern Ireland, the other few percent just say they are from Ireland. That is what makes me think of it as two states within one. No matter what is put upon paper, a line will divide people for many generations. That's why I call the British "English." The people I've met from Northern Ireland call them that, making no distinction because of England being the one who the Irish believe, right or wrong, were the puppet masters.
Chouan, you are a damned intersting man to argue/chat/talk to.
Ny Irish, what do you mean 28mm? I'm still trying to figure out the space it would take for 1/72 scale!!!
When I used to play the Lord Of The Rings game, an 8 foot by 6 foot board would barely work for a skirmish at 25mm. I have built many a building, and something like the Four Courts would need…. a hell of a lot of stuff, besides figs, even at 1/72. I hate it when logistics gets in the way!
Again, sorry if this is a long rant, but you guys all have good points. If you ever find yourself in Key Largo, it be my shout for the pints!
Harrington

The point is that Ireland, as an island, isn't two states within one. It is two states that are on one island. Rather like the Dominican Republic and Haiti on the island of Hispaniola. Two seperate independent states, with, obviously, a shared history. Of course there's a dividing line. It's a national frontier, like that between the USA and Mexico, only one that is perhaps easier to cross. Legally that is!

NYIrish. I'm more than happy to educate you in Irish History. Indeed, British History. Is there anything else you'd like to find out about?

But who decided to divide Ireland? Easy to say that it was the Irish, but who threatened them with all-out war if they did not agree? If the small, but usually well-to-do minority in the North had also disagreed with the rest of Ireland about English rule, what would have happened? Winston Churchill would have preferred it that way, I'm sure. It would have given him the chance to show the Irish just how strong the forces of England were. Most people I have met from Ireland, who do voice an opinion, whether Catholic or Protestant, will say that the English should have left Ireland hundreds of years ago. Yes, hindsight is 20/20.
As for the Ilsand OF Hispanoilla, Haiti and The Domican Republic were never one colony under English rule, where one had to make a deal with the English to keep from being invaded. Comparing them to Ireland are like apples and orangemen.

The partition of Ireland was agreed by both sides after negotiations which resulted in the creation of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. The negotiations were carried out by a team from Sinn Fein, and a team of British government people. The South gained its independence, which is what the War of Independence sought to acheive. The North, which wished to remain part of the UK, got its own way too. A good compromise.
What is this threat of "all out war" that you mention? The people of Britain wanted the conflict to end, especially so close to the end of the "War to end war". So did the people of Ireland.
"If the small, but usually well-to-do minority in the North had also disagreed with the rest of Ireland about English rule, what would have happened?"
An interesting "what if", but it didn't happen.
"Most people I have met from Ireland, who do voice an opinion, whether Catholic or Protestant, will say that the English should have left Ireland hundreds of years ago."
The "English" as you persist in calling them, had no reason to leave. To the British who went to Ireland, it wasn't a "colony", it was their home. Why should they leave? They saw themselves as Irish! Did those of British heritage leave Ireland when it became independent? No. They stayed. They were Irish. Their religion was irrelevant. One could argue that, if it really had been an invasion and a conquest, there wouldn't have been a problem. Ireland would have become British in culture. However, it wasn't an invasion. Strongbow, and others, were invited to Ireland, by Irish rulers. They then stayed, and their descendants became what is referred to as the "Old English". Then more came, and were gradually assimilated by the Irish, under the British crown. It's not as simple as people will have you beleive!
Sorry. Here endeth today's lesson.

Thanks for the offer for private tutoring, Chouan, but I too teach Irish history. As I'm sure you know your statement regarding the Treaty and the South's "independence" is a simplification. The Treaty gave Ireland nothing more than what the Home Rule bill of 1912 and the Government of Ireland Act of '20 was going to give them anyway. By signing the Treaty, the delegates were saying the war was pointless. The Republic -both in action and in name- came afterwards when England was occupied (not literaly, of course) with the Germans once again. Again, your description of the "invitation of Ireland" by the Anglo-Normans is a gross simplification. One disgruntled Leinster chieftan "invited" them -and they proceeded to take as much as they could. Your Welsman Giraldus Cambrensis, who went in with them, entitled his book the "Conquest of Ireland" -not the "Invitation to a Pleasant Chat that Ended up Lasting 700 Years". Fynes Moryson, an Englishman (his phrase, so don't get excited), wrote in the 16th century describing Elizabeth's Irish wars and he wrote that "conquered nations seldom love their conquerors" The phrase "Old English" refered to English Catholics who sided with the "mere Irish" in the days of the Nine Years War- not to every English settler that stayed long enough. Its true many landlords and their ilk didn't leave right after the Treaty, but they are disapearing. Most Church of Ireland collections on Sunday are lucky to get 10p. I've got a game scenario that would please: A picked force of Shoneen must make their way across an open field to kiss the landlords arse, making certain they don't listen to the ignorant yelps of the dirty Fenian behind the hedge. Excuse the language, boys, and the raving- I'll bow out of this thread as it has ceased to be about wargaming.

NY Irish, I bow out with you, but I have to admit that you said it best. Good job!!!
Harrington

Its amazing any discussion about Ireland ends up like this. I remember the Irish wars yahoo group going up for the same reason.
Anyway I have thought about the 16 a few times and reckon |I would look for some dismounted Boer war figs.Wearing a slouch hat and bandolier.

Yes, any talk of this subject brings out the best AND worst in people, depending on their views, politics, and what they were told in school. Teachers come out of the woodwork, people who know someone who someone who knew just a rumor are experts.
I plan to start a new topic on this, rules and figs ideas only. NO HISTORY LESSONS!
Anyone agree? It is just a game.
Harrington

"NO HISTORY LESSONS!"
Interesting comment, since it was NYIrish "Read, then of Emily Hobhouse and the Committee for South African Women and Children. She reported to Parliament in June 1901." on 02 Feb 2010 4:36 p.m. PST, and yourself "Chouan, if you read a bit of Irish history and you wll find out that there were actual battles fought. The Easter Rising/General Post Office (GPO) seige was Irish vs. English, while the Battle of the Four Courts was a cival war." on 02 Feb 2010 9:34 p.m. PST, who brought the History Lessons into the thread. I responded on 03 Feb 2010 2:09 a.m. PST.
It seems that when you didn't like my interpretation of Irish History, you then took a dislike to what you refer to as History Lessons. Anyway, I thought that you were enjoying the discussion? "Chouan, you are a damned intersting man to argue/chat/talk to."

Chouan, I do like history lessons, but I fear we lost the point of the whole game idea. I love to argue/chat/talk with anyone on this subject. But what we read and/or taught are not allways the same thing. There is the old saying that history is written by the victors. I feel that that statement is true. In grade school (back in the earley 70's) we we told that the entire American Civil War was based upon freeing the slaves in the south. Same as all the myths about George Washington and the cherry tree, WW2 being a war to free concentration camps, the list goes on and on. I know people that think the AWI was won in 1776!
People will allways argue their own interprtation of what REALLY happened. Just human nature.
And yes, I do find coversations with you very interesting!! Please know I meant no personal offence to you when I started a new topic. I realised we were just getting off tract, and I will take any blame for that.
How about starting the history in the "Blue Fez?". I would very much like that. Although I do disagree with some of your statements, they are educational. And I love education.
So, how about a Blue Fez topic? I would love it! I still have a lot to say, as I am sure you do also.
How about it, my friend?
Harrington

If you can direct me to the Blue Fez, I'd be happy to.

Check out the TMP FAQ. THat's how I found it.
No posting yet, been sick.
Harrington

I missed this originally. I will slip in between the politics with some useful data.

With the Musketeer miniatures, the Black tree boers, Cannonfodder, conversions with Grippping Beast heads (tams coming soon), various Force of Arms and Anglian (Empress) SCW miniatures, assorted gangsters from Copplestone and Brigade, you can make all the Irish flying column and Dublin companies you could want. Here is a game with dozens of such figures.
link

assorted info on figures
link
link
Cannonfodder conversions
picture

Here are figs I did for (some) IWI and VBCW
picture

Armed and unarmed versions of same figure
picture

Gangsters/police with many IWI options
picture

i like third row from top, far left, Bergman in suitcase, ready to blast some of the Gmen from the Castle.