Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T06:39:59.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE UNION AND THE MILITARY, 1801–c.1830

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2002

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

WHEN writing his monumental history of the British army, Sir John Fortescue devoted just two paragraphs to the military implications of the Union. He noted that Union greatly simplified British military affairs in general and that this was an excellent thing for historians, driven to distraction by the confusing archival situation produced by the pre-Union military relationship of the two countries. The Irish military historian, Sir Henry McAnally, was equally succinct, merely remarking that `military matters had not bulked largely in the Union debates'. In ways they were both right. Although none of the eight articles of the Union refer to the army, it was understood that the assimilation principle, which regulated other branches of the public service and the church, would apply to the army. Yet, beneath and perhaps because of the delusive brevity of these bare facts, lies a seriously under-researched subject with wider ramifications, both in the short and longer term. Before these issues can be developed, it is first necessary to set the context by describing the pre-Union military background Ireland and then outlining the formal changes wrought by the Union.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society2000

References

1 Sir John Fortescue,A History of the British Army, (13 volumes, 1899–1930),iv, 886–7.

2 Sir Henry McAnally,The Irish Militia, 1793–1816, (Dublin and London, 1949), 159.