BBC Host: The 1916 Easter Rising and the War of Independence that followed in 1919-21 transformed the political landscape in Ireland. The rebels surprised the British on Easter Monday with just a thousand men and women against 400 soldiers.

Initially vilified on the streets of Dublin, the rebels were soon transformed into martyrs and in the process rejuvenated the political demand for Irish independence.

Historian Brian Barton is an expert on this period and has contributed to BBCi's extensive and
comprehensive website on the rising. He is the author (with Michael Foy) of 'The Easter Rising' and 'Behind a Closed Door'.

Judith asks: Why did Irish people choose to hit the British right in the middle of the most bloody First World War, when so many people had already suffered the loss of family and friends?

Dr Brian Barton: There is a republican slogan, 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity.' For militant nationalists England's distraction in a European war seemed an ideal opportunity to strike for freedom.

It also held out the hope of getting German support in the form of arms, troops, even submarines. The leaders of the rioting, even pre-1914, had thought war between England and Germany likely, and in August 1914, established contact with the German Government, through the German Embassy in Washington.

Support for the use of force to achieve an independent republic had been growing in Ireland since 1890, and found it origins in the Wolfe Tone rebellion of 1798.

Kevin O Meara asks: If the British government had conceded Home Rule in 1912 could the 1916 Rising have still taken place?

Dr Brian Barton: Home Rule would never have satisfied the leaders of the Rising. The threat of Home Rule was for men like Clarke and MacDermott a reason for having a Rising.

They feared if Ireland got Home Rule, the people at large would be satisfied, and Ireland would never have fulfilled its national destiny of becoming an Independent Republic.

A reason for growing support for physical support nationalism was the failure from the 1880s of constitutional nationalism to achieve anything, but there were also other factors. For example the cultural revival in the 1890s - the growth of the GAA and Gaelic League which encouraged more militant nationalism.

Also important was the determination and extreme methods of the Ulster Unionists, which encouraged similar responses amongst nationalists. The sense of the war as being an opportunity to strike, was a stimulus to the rising.

Also, for the rising leaders military failure, was not the only gauge of success. All believed in the idea of the blood sacrifice. Its impossible to say, if a Rising would have taken place had home rule already been granted. Certainly there would have been pressures on the leadership of John Redmond to move toward an independent republic.

Dee asks: Who was the most influential person in the uprising?

Dr Brian Barton: The dynamic force behind the Rising was the military council of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, comprised of the 7 men who signed the proclamation.

The rising is closely identified with Patrick Pearse, who became almost to be its symbol, but the key figures in organising the Rising were Thomas Clarke, and his much younger close associate Sean McDermott. It was on Clarke's initiative that the IRB military council was set up in the first place in May 1915.

Nicola asks: Where did Pearse get the idea of a 'blood sacrifice' from?

Dr Brian Barton: All the leaders agreed to some extent on the blood sacrifice. i.e. that the Risings success could not be measured only in military terms, but that defeat and their death could be victory.

This was because they felt their death would revive physical force nationalism and which would be ultimately successful. Also they felt that they're being prepared to die proved Ireland's right to independence.

Pearse went further, he believed in the benefit to mankind of blood spilt on the battlefield. Such ideas were widespread in Europe before the carnage of World War One. In addition, he blended his nationalism and catholicism, his christian devotions centered on Christs crucifixion, he developed a yearning for martyrdom, in emulation of Christs sacrifice on the Cross.

His self sacrifice ideas stemmed from his religious faith, from the example of his heroes, Emmet and Tone, from Irish Mythology, from the context of war, when millions were dying for their country and from his personality, even in childhood he had fantasies of self sacrifice. Arguably, as well he had little to look forward to in life as head of a failing, increasingly bankrupt school.

Mamagem asks: What part did the north of Ireland, if any, play in the Rising?

Dr Brian Barton: The North played practically no part in the Rising. Those who planned the Rising, excluded Ulster from their plans in part because of fears of fomenting sectarian violence in the North.

At the start of Easter Week, some volunteers assembled and marched to Tyrone, but lacking arms and sufficient numbers dispersed. A number of the rising leaders had close contact with the North.

James Connolly had worked there as a union organiser, Thomas Clarke was brought up in Tyrone; Sean McDermott had worked in Belfast; Major McBride claims to have been educated at St Malachy's.

Linda asks: Where did the arms the rebels used come from?

Dr Brian Barton: An acute problem for the insurgents, was the shortage of arms. The arms which were used were mainly those run through Howth in July 1914.

The leaders had planned to get more arms from Germany, and also support from German troops and submarines to block British reinforcements moving to Ireland. Germany was only willing to provide limited aid, from its own military interests in distracting British troops from the Western front.

It sent on the 9th of April, 1916, 20 thousand ex-Russian rifles, which were to have been landed on the West Coast of Ireland at Fenit Pier. These were captured by the British with devastating results and as a result the West of Ireland did not rise, largely because of lack of arms.

Also Eoin McNeill issued his famous countermand orders cancelling Irish Volunteer manoevures for Easter Sunday, when he heard that the arms had been captured. This also meant that the Rising was largely confined to Dublin. When it did start, only about a third of the numbers expected turned out in Dublin on Easter Monday.

Paul asks: Why did the British react so brutally to the Rising?

Dr Brian Barton: The key decisions in response to the Rising were taken by Major General John Maxwell who was head of British Military Rule in Ireland from 27th April.

It was his view that the leaders should be shot, Republican suspects arrested, and illegal arms called in. He felt justified in this because of the death and destruction the rising had caused, its association with Germany, Britain's war-time enemy, his feeling that it was nearly so much worse - if German arms had got through, he also wanted to deter future risings, he felt if concessions were made, it would encourage more violence.

And that weak Government had caused the Rising in the first place. He came under strong pressure to stop the executions, but it is unlikely he would have carried out more of them anyway. The British response was much less brutal, than e.g. the German response to resistance in occupied areas of Belgium in wartime, and to its own civilians, within Germany at the end of the war.

JP asks: To what extent can the modern Republican leadership justifiably claim to be descended directly from the leaders of 1916?

Dr Brian Barton: There are close parallels between the two. Both in 1916 and since, the 98 rebellion has been an inspiration. The use of force to get an united independent Irish Republic, secretive organisation, the efforts to get external support, indifference to the will of the majority are all hallmarks in both periods.

The nature of the violence is different: the PIRA adopted guerilla methods in a long war, whilst Easter was short and open conflict, but the intention arguably is similar - to achieve victory, to increase anti British feeling, to kill prospects for compromise, the blood sacrifice ideas could be seen during the Hunger Strike.

Differences might be that with provisional violence much of it was directed against civilians and their property, at Easter 1916, the leadership was sensitive to civilian losses, this was a major factor in calling off the Rising.

Nonetheless, 250, of the 450 deaths in Easter week were civilians. In making contrasts between then and now, some might argue, that the quality of Republican leadership was of a higher calibre during the Easter Rising than in the more recent 'Troubles.'

And that violence was more justified and more legitimate in 1916 than recently.

Joe asks: How did a socialist like James Connolly get involved with a romantic like Patrick Pearse?

Dr Brian Barton: The two had more in common than might seem obvious. Both agreed on the need for a Rising to achieve Irish Independence, and saw war as the opportunity to expel English influence from Ireland. It was Connolly who said "Without the shedding of blood there is no redemption."

It should be remembered that Connolly was throughout a Nationalist as well as a socialist blending both in the 1880s. He said himself that he was out during the Rising because he was "an Irishman".

His nationalist feelings got stronger post 1913, because of disillusionment at the collapse of the Dublin lock out in 1913, because of the prospects of partition, which would weaken the Irish labour movement, he felt, because of the collapse of international socialism with the outbreak of war, and because he saw war as an opportunity to strike for Irish freedom, which should not be missed.

He also felt a Rising would rekindle physical force nationalism. And even if they failed, others would follow the example and achieve ultimate victory.


For more information on the 1916 Easter Rising visit:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/education/history/index.shtml


More transcripts