In 1796, the French Republic attempted to land an expeditionary force of 15,000 men led by Lazare Hoche in Ireland in an attempt to trigger a revolution in Ireland against British rule. In OTL the Expedition failed due to heavy storms but the British wouldn't have actually been able to interfere with the fleet in any case. So, let's say that the expeditionary force is able to land. How would the British confront this Expedition and the resulting Rebellion? And assuming that Britain was successful, what would the aftermath of the Expedition look like for Ireland, Great Britain and France? What effect would it have on relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and indeed the wider conflict between Britain and France?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Irish Expedition of 1796
- Thread starter Venocara
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yes but that was after the rebellion when a) the United Irishmen were much weaker and b) the British had much more men in Ireland.
1,000 French men under Humbert with a couple thousand more surviving Irish rebels vs 100,000 British Soldiers in Ireland isn't much more than an annoyance.
If Hoche had landed you're talking 15,000 French with 50,000 rebels vs an Ireland that's largely undefended except by local militia. He's much more of a threat. I think Cork would almost certainly fall.
Dublin would be trickier if only because you'd imagine ti would be reinforced.
Which is the main problem. The British Armies in Ireland weren't great quality, see Humbert at Castlebar but they could be easily reinforced and the French can't.
How far could the French and rebels advance before being overwhelmed? And when the French are eventually forced out, what do you think the British reaction to this failed invasion/rebellion would be?
I wasn't trying to say, "Hoche would have turned out exactly like Humbert," I was giving an example of another attempted French invasion via Ireland that occurred to me. My understanding has always been that Humbert did quite well in the circumstances, enough so that one may question how far he or another French commander could have gone if they had enjoyed more resources and support from the French government.
The one thing I remember from history class is that the plan was for Hoche to attack Cork while Lord Fitzgerald would direct the uprising to take place in Dublin itself. Fitzgerald was critically wounded during his arrest and died from his injuries a short time afterwards, of course, just as surely as the French ships were wrecked in the storm. Since the uprising in Dublin itself was characterised by incompetence from both the Castle men and the rebels, I wonder whether Fitzgerald's presence would have made any difference.
- Pronouns
- he/him
I believe that The Napoleon Options has quite a good essay on a successful Hoche expedition, if you can track that book down.
I've found it on Google Books and read it; I don't believe it's the most plausible scenario. In any case, I'm more concerned about the aftermath of a scenario in which the French land substantial numbers of troops in Ireland and still fail.
I'd assume the most likely outcome is "Britain violently oppresses the Irish even more so", and I guess it also knocks out Home Rule as we know it in the 19th century ("but we can't trust them with power")
- Pronouns
- he/him
I don't think a bloody French backed Irish Rebellion being put down in 1796 changes much from OTL history wherein a bloody French backed Irish Rebellion was put down in 1798 in terms of long term perceptions.
The only interesting thing about it, is it would have been more likely to succeed than the 1798 uprising did. If it failed, it's almost certain the British act the same as they did in OTL. By which I mean passing the acts of union and sending the rebels off to Australia as forced labour.
The only interesting thing about it, is it would have been more likely to succeed than the 1798 uprising did. If it failed, it's almost certain the British act the same as they did in OTL. By which I mean passing the acts of union and sending the rebels off to Australia as forced labour.
- Pronouns
- he/him
I suppose you kill Hoche a year earlier, but I don't think he did much in OTL post 1796 anyway.
So then you're left with British troops elsewhere being withdrawn to fight in Ireland. Where they'd come from is obvious this is 1796, the year of the great push for slavery. The largest Army Britain had raised in years was fighting all across the Caribbean to reinstate slavery after the french abolished it.
So they're all coming back.
Only the problem with that as a major POD is this is December 1796 and the order to withdraw in OTL came in February 1797. It's unlikely to make a huge difference.
So then you're left with British troops elsewhere being withdrawn to fight in Ireland. Where they'd come from is obvious this is 1796, the year of the great push for slavery. The largest Army Britain had raised in years was fighting all across the Caribbean to reinstate slavery after the french abolished it.
So they're all coming back.
Only the problem with that as a major POD is this is December 1796 and the order to withdraw in OTL came in February 1797. It's unlikely to make a huge difference.
The Irish rebellion would be substantially larger than OTL - there would be a French army led by Hoche on Irish soil, and also in 1796 the United Irishmen were definitely stronger than in 1798. I think Dublin may very well fall to the stronger United Irishmen. It would fail for sure, but for a few years Hoche would be able to continue a war in Ireland. I can imagine he might die in battle.
But what also interests me is Ireland, or at least part of it, turning into Britain's Vendee. Hoche was, after all, the man who pacified the Vendee, so I think he'd be uniquely well-suited in making the United Irishmen launch a Vendee-style campaign. This would take up some of Britain's troops for a time.
Also, this would cause a financial crisis. IOTL, a small number of French troops landing at Fishguard caused a run on the Bank of England; a French army led by Hoche on Irish soil would be a much greater reason to panic.
But what also interests me is Ireland, or at least part of it, turning into Britain's Vendee. Hoche was, after all, the man who pacified the Vendee, so I think he'd be uniquely well-suited in making the United Irishmen launch a Vendee-style campaign. This would take up some of Britain's troops for a time.
Also, this would cause a financial crisis. IOTL, a small number of French troops landing at Fishguard caused a run on the Bank of England; a French army led by Hoche on Irish soil would be a much greater reason to panic.
With a much larger and bloodier revolt than in OTL is there even the slightest hope that Pitt may just be able to secure Irish Emancipation with the Act of Union? After all, the revolt was mostly led by Protestants (except for the French) and there would be worries about future rebellions.
Also, with such a large revolt is it possible that the Kingdom of Great Britain would retain its name when the Act of Union is passed (to symbolise Ireland's integration into Great Britain)? And what would be the effect on New South Wales with so many more convicts being transported?
What effect would proto-guerrilla warfare combined with financial troubles have on Britain's capability to fight future Coalition Wars?
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
If it succeeded, what would have happened? How long could the independent Irish state have lasted?
- Pronouns
- he/him
It's true that sometimes rebellions lead to concessions, but I don't that's likely in this case. Remember that this a time when most governments out of France ended up treating anything remotely associated with the French Republic as being inherently revolutionary. Catherine the Great banning the word 'citizen' is an extreme example, but by the close of the Napoleonic Wars Britain would have the most authoritarian regime the islands have seen since the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
The United Irishmen were largely led by Protestants, true- but the Ascendancy that dominated the Irish Parliament was entirely made up of the Anglo-Irish elite who were opposed to any concessions to Catholicism as a direct threat to their class. Pitt would be more isolated in this scenario, not less.
I think this is a recipe for a somewhat unhappier Ireland in the nineteenth century. It'll be policed even more firmly than OTL, which will probably contribute to a harsher and more hostile reception to people like O'Connell. A delay to Emancipation of ten years or more compared to OTL is entirely plausible in my opinion, and that raises the awful specter of the Famine hitting an Ireland whose citizens have even fewer rights and representatives than in our world. Things could get far worse.
As to NSW: while a full Irish rebellion aka my piece 'The Fatal Shore' is unlikely, United Irish convicts (largely Catholics, it should be noted) did rise up in 1804 at Castle Hill. If there's more rebels- and more rebel leaders- I'd expect more doomed uprisings. Catholicism and Irishness (eventually almost always conflated) were not well received in nineteenth century Australia; that'll get worse here. Possibly you don't get people like Charles Gavan Duffy as an Irish nationalist premier of Victoria, but instead a situation where a quarter of the population feels more and more isolated from their neighbors.
Last edited:
But why would Pitt be more isolated with a larger Protestant-led rebellion? Isn't it more likely that the Ascendancy would be weakened by this? And do you think that a more sympathetic King than George III would have been able to make the difference?
In the long run what effect would this have on NSW and the states that emerged from it?
The United Irishmen had a far stronger Dissenter (chiefly Presbyterian) element than Anglican, and the Ascendancy was Anglican. So there absolutely was a firm religious division between the Ascendancy and the United Irishmen.
A Dissenter-Catholic alliance successful in inviting a French army led by Hoche in Ireland would absolutely terrify the British elite. Even IOTL, a Dissenter-Catholic alliance was a great fear, and Sidmouth even wanted to amend the Toleration Act to weaken Dissenters’ religious freedom, in order to prevent such an alliance from existing. With such an alliance successfully inviting the French Army into Ireland, those fears are going to be confirmed.
So not only is Catholic emancipation going to be set back, but so will Dissenter rights.
- Pronouns
- he/him
I imagine you're also going to see a further crackdown within Britain itself. Dissenters, Catholics, radicals of all kind- they're going to suffer. Things like the 'Cato Street Conspiracy' could well be taken as proof that revolutionaries are trying to aid and abet a French invasion.
- Pronouns
- he/him
It's actually a really interesting question, Venocara. Successful United Irishmen Rebellions have been done before; the ramifications of a huge, unsuccessful rising haven't been explored as much.