"A Bloody Day: The Irish at Waterloo " Topic

(Dan Harvey).

"At least one third of the British army that faced the French forces of Napoleon at Waterloo on June 18 1815 were, like Wellington himself, Irish. Yet such a substantial Irish participation in an event that decided the fate of Europe is not readily brought to mind by the British, nor indeed by the Irish themselves, when mention is made of the battle. In this book, Dan Harvey seeks to redress the balance. He retells the story of Waterloo with a keen military eye, examining specifically how the thousands of Irishmen who took part on the battlefield helped to ensure victory. Napoleon himself acknowledged the Irish role. Speaking of the 27th Inniskillings, he said, ‘I have seen Russian, Prussian, and French bravery, but anything to equal the stubborn bravery of the regiment with castles in their caps, I have never witnessed.'

Dan Harvey has previously written and published a number of highly successful books on the involvement of the Irish Defence Forces overseas. A serving officer of Lieutenant Colonel rank, he has 37 years' service to-date, during which he has been involved in a wide variety of operations both at home and overseas. A highly qualified heritage practitioner, he has been associated with a number of worthy projects, most notably a number of military museum exhibitions. He has had a life-long interest in the Battle of Waterloo, particularly in the role of those ‘forgotten Irish' in what was one of the greatest land battles in world history."
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I love stories like this, described in the link above. Maybe because I am Irish anyway, with a passport to prove it, despite 61 years living in UK and only my first 4 months in the "Old Country".

So Boney, from the heights of Rossome….or, at closest, La B All, can see the cap badges on the 27th. It's like the story that he thought those riders on Greys were so terrible. "Comme les gris etc……"(mon Francais est formidable). He ignored the other mass of cavalry tearing up d'Erlon's lads and the Left flank cuirassiers, but could pick out one relatively small unit at a mile and a half.

Who actually is thought to have recorded theses words in the middle of a battle?

OK, I will certainly now buy this. But there is an Irish word. It is "Eejet". It applies to someone who has known for a decade, at least, that a certain anniversary is coming up……..and only now do we hear of this book. Remind me…was not the battle fought in June?

smaoineamh maith. ró-dhéanach

Glad you like it my friend and I understand you… I'm married with an Irish Woman!. (smile).

Terrible character… loyal as could be!

(good idea. too late?)

Amicalement
Armand

Hi

You can have a good look (and read) of some of the book at Amazon:

link

A pretty harrowing story, really…

Deadhead

Good question. Did Napoleon says those words or not?

However, a mass of cavalry in red jackets on grey horses would surely stand out when charging from one ridge towards another, no matter what else was going on?

Also, he may have been aware who the Irish troops/regiments were, via British prisoners? And who knows how good the telescopes were? LOL

Tango01

I hope this book is not going to try and convince us that Waterloo was won by the Irish, in the same way that another title tried to convince us it was won by Germans. LOL.

And I also hope Wellington's Forgotten Heroes which describes the Dutch-Belgian contribution in the battle is not going to try and convince us it was won by the Dutch-Belgians?

But I do wonder if this is the way things are going in future battle/campaign accounts, in that they will be
concentrating just on the involvement of one nationality? I guess that wouldn't be too bad a thing, providing the involvement of the rest of the Allied troops, and indeed the French, were not totally ignored. It was, after all, an allied victory, or rather, after reading Stephen Beckett's book, possibly more of a French one. LOL

Actually, most British people I know who have any understanding of, or interest in, the Battle of Waterloo, are aware of the Irish content of the British Army – not just in Irish regiments, but in all parts of the organisation. The idea that they are any more "forgotten" that the English or Welsh is a bit dubious – in fact, they probably rank second after the Scots (whose PR is "nulli secundus" in this area) in terms of recognition. Nice to see he – and his publishers – managed to avoid the myth and mention that the Duke was one, though.

Of course, having been born in Dublin, although granted it was then not capital of an independent republic……….if he was still alive now at 240 years plus of age…….he could claim Irish citizenship. Somehow, I do doubt that he would though………

The Irish are still just as funny about those who served the British Crown, whether on the ridge at Mt St Jean or in WWII. There is an older generation that still bears grudges, even for the Paddy Finucaines, Eugene Esmondes or Gen O'Connors of that era.

Tango, you have my sympathy. They make great wives, but then absolutely ferocious mothers,….like any Italian, Greek or Jewish woman

Five of the eight non-honorary field marshals of the British Army in WW2 (Alanbrooke, Alexander, Dill, Gort, Montgomery) were Irishmen. Had O'Connor picked a driver with a better sense of direction, it would probably have been six out of nine.

I spent the last five years of my secondary education eating my lunch under the portraits of Esmonde, Maurice Dease and Gerald O'Sullivan (despite being in South West London, all three of my school's VCs were native-born Irishmen).

Deadhead; Agree, that quote is apocryphal at best. I would never use it, but wriing non-academic history has its benefits. ;o)

Now, as to the word "eejet"….my grandfather Cashman, a Cork man, pronounced it "eejit" though I recall him using another word in front of it, though that word escapes me at the moment….

Go raibh maith agat….slan……..Mark

Thanks deadhead! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The preceding adverb is the same throughout Ireland and,as long as you use an "E" and not a "U" after the "F", it is entirely and curiously acceptable, in the most polite circles!

How many e's appear in eejet or eejit does depend on where you are from tho'. Tipperary would be eeeeeeeeeeeeejut, Dublin or Cork would be eejit.

My school had a VC memorial for one of the poor devils, sent by eejits, that tried to bomb the bridges over the Meuse in Fairey Battles………now I must research where Esmonde was educated!

Wellington was born in Ireland. His Dad was Irish. His early years were in Ireland. He WAS Irish. Get over it.

I would love to agree with you Gazzola.

Nothing would make me prouder.

But he was the product of what was seen then (and is now in the Irish Republic…I still call it Eire) as an occupying power. He saw himself as "British" though.

Funny thing, the lives lost, but we all still ended up in a European Union together. Most of us have huge respect for EIIR, bless her. It ain't worth it……….

Deadhead

But his dad was Irish, born in Ireland and from an Irish family, not an English one. The Duke was born in Ireland and his early childhood was in Ireland. He was definitely Irish. I'm baffled as to why people won't accept he was Irish, after all, it won't make any difference to history.

link

bbc.co.uk/timelines/zxjw7ty

[q] Deadhead; Agree, that quote is apocryphal at best [/q]

Poweder smoke?

It would be interesting to see whether the author mentions a source for this alleged quotation. It's not as if the traditions of the 27th needed a unlikely anecdote to promote their resolute stand at Waterloo.

For what it's worth, this praise from the Emperor is not mentioned in the 1876 'Historical Record of the 27th Inniskilling Regiment' by W.Copeland-Trimble.

link

The Castle emblem on the shako plate was roughly an inch square.

Gazzola's article (The catholic Herald of all things….long time since I read that) does make some very good points indeed.

I personally would love to accept he was Irish. I think my only doubt was what we would he have called himself (if the issue ever actually bothered him).

I grew up indoctrinated with the idea of the aristocratic, minority, Anglical High Church, English gentry exploiting and despising the poor, down trodden,freedom-loving, Papist majority.

He was part of that Protestant Ascendancy, so my stereotype was that he would have laughed at being called Irish. The main point that struck me from the article was that the term "Anglo-Irish" did not exist then. The views of my childhood were those of the early 60s, from parents born in 1916 and 1926!

Irish politics are a minefield and have little need for facts. Only very recently has the Irish Govt recognised that those of its citizens who served in the Allied Forces in WWII, were not being disloyal to Eire. Thanks Gazzola, very thought provoking.

The article on 27th was well worth a read. Some accounts there I have not seen before, but indeed no contribution from Boney on 27th

IMHO, calling the Duke of Wellington 'Irish' is equivalent to calling persons born in the American colonies, whose families remained loyal to the Crown and went to Britain or Canada after the Revolution, 'Americans'!

A good comparison. Also a revolutionary war for Independence (with colonial locals fighting on either side, as rebels and loyalists) soon followed by a Civil War of course (as is every revolution.)

My question would still be what did the the de Lanceys of that time call themselves, not what did others call them?

You are only an Irishman if you want to be……well OK these days we do have rules and regulations about passports, nationalities and borders, don't we….don't we?

It does not matter if the Duke considered himself Irish or not. But not calling Wellington Irish is a bit like saying Napoleon was not Corsican. It matters where you were born and were your father was born. As I said before, Wellington was born in Ireland, so was his father to an Irish family. That means the Duke, like it or not, was Irish. And being Irish does not take away his achievements or talents, so I don't see the problem.

arthur1815

I don't think your American point can count because America wasn't a country before 1776, it was a load of colonies and was called the United Colonies. After the British lost The War of Independence it became the nation known as The United States of America.

There are at least two, if not three issues here.

One, is W's nationality – a legal matter. I confess I'm not sure what the position was before the Act of Union in 1801 when he was born, but after that Act Ireland was absorbed into the United Kingdom, so one was a citizen of the UK, rather than of England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland.

Secondly, how one thinks of oneself and one's racial origin. For example, my wife was born in the Philippines so was, both legally and racially, a Filipina, but has since acquired UK citizenship. So, legally, she can claim to be British/UK, but still regards herself as Filipina. Since the Wellesleys did not support the United Irishmen in the Rebellion of 1798, it would not be unreasonable to presume that their loyalty to the British Crown overrode any sense of being Irish – hence my analogy with the AWI – and they regarded themselves as British. Anyone born in the Colonies had, during or after the Revolutionary War, to decide whether they were 'American' or 'British' and act accordingly. Similarly during 1798, in 1916 at the creation of the Republic of Ireland or during the subsequent 'Troubles', people could choose which party to support.

Thirdly, and unfortunately, the troubled historical relationship between Ireland and Great Britain has resulted in the term 'Irish' often now suggesting a religious/political allegiance and attitude towards the UK that Wellesley and his family certainly did not share, although after the Napoleonic Wars he supported the principle of Catholic Emancipation. Many people born in Ulster, who have UK citizenship, choose instead to regard themselves as 'Irish' and to campaign for a united Ireland.

For all these reasons, whilst it is of course true that Wellesley was born in Ireland, I believe it is inappropriate to describe him as 'Irish'.

Arthur – your argument concerning the Duke is based on a false premise about what people in another place thought themselves to be. Prior to July 4, 1776, anyone born in the American Colonies could think of themselves as "American" – this was not a status that was invented on that specific date, but a gradual awareness of something distinct from being English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, but being "sui generis" – Americans fell under the heading of "British" in the same way the other four did in contemporary culture. Being an American did not exempt you – either willingly or unwillingly – from being a Loyalist, and nor was this the case in Ireland in 1798. Post-AWI Loyalists still described themselves as "Americans", although some may have changed that as they migrated to Canada and that became a specific nation.

In the same way, many people who thought themselves Irish took the part of the Crown during the 1798 rebellion. Indeed, the bicentennial exhibition at Collins Barracks in Dublin back in 1998 actually made that specific point. It quite deliberately referred to rebels and loyalists, and to those Irish people who supported the Crown. At least one Irish PM and one President have remarked about accepting the "loyalist tradition" as part of Irish culture (and not just in references to the North).

The idea that "you can't be Irish, you don't think like us" is an essentially racist idea that gradually evolved in the 19th Century through the speeches of O'Connell and others (indeed, it was he who – in describing the Duke – coined the phrase about stables and horses). As an Irishman (and not of the "Anglo-" vaiety), I regard this attitude as being on a par with "you can't be British, you're not white". Sorry, but people whose families have lived in Ireland almost twice as long as there have been white folk in North America, are entitled to think of themselves as Irish and if they do so, they should be considered such by others (irrespective of what those others may think of the matter).

Whilst it is true that the Duke never described himself as "Irish" specifically, he never – to my knowledge – described himself as anything else either. What he did do, during both his military and political careers, was favour Irishmen (many of them Catholic) whom he knew had neither money nor patronage especially in his role as C-in-C of the Portuguese army. He championed Catholic Emancipation (considering it a debt owed to Irish Catholics for their service in the Napoleonic Wars) and fought a duel on the matter. He also refused the Presidency of the Orange Order in Ireland (which I cannot imagine he would have been offered had he not been considered "Irish" in the first place) on the grounds that the Order discriminated against the majority of the population. This is by no means conclusive evidence of his nationality, but it certainly indicates a level of sympathy that is compatible with it.

Arthur1815

It is like anything in history, you have to look at it from the time it happened, not from the present day viewpoint.

Wellington was born long before the Union of Ireland with Britain in 1801.

And we would not call a Spaniard who was born in Spain when it was occupied by the French, a Frenchman – he was Spanish. Wellington was Irish. There's no getting away from it, not that there should be any need to anyway.

On that basis, the comedian Spike Milligan, whose ancestors for several generations were born in India, when it was part of the British Empire, was an Indian!

arthur1815

No, because his father was, like the Duke, Irish and his mother English. So, if anything, he could be considered as Irish. The Duke has some good company, it seems.