What do you think?
Rate this book
The Republic: The Fight for Irish Independence
This is a gripping narrative of the most critical years in modern Ireland's history, from Charles Townshend. The protracted, terrible fight for independence pitted the Irish against the British and the Irish against other Irish. It was both a physical battle of shocking violence against a regime increasingly seen as alien and unacceptable and an intellectual battle for a new sort of country. The damage done, the betrayals and grim compromises put the new nation into a state of trauma for at least a generation, but at a nearly unacceptable cost the struggle ended: a new republic was born.
Charles Townshend's Easter 1916 opened up the astonishing events around the Rising for a new generation and in The Republic he deals, with the same unflinchingly wish to get to the truth behind the legend, with the most critical years in Ireland's history. There has been a great temptation to view these years through the prisms of martyrology and good-and-evil. The picture painted by Townshend is far more nuanced and sceptical - but also never loses sight of the ordinary forms of heroism performed by Irish men and women trapped in extraordinary times.
Charles Townshend's Easter 1916 opened up the astonishing events around the Rising for a new generation and in The Republic he deals, with the same unflinchingly wish to get to the truth behind the legend, with the most critical years in Ireland's history. There has been a great temptation to view these years through the prisms of martyrology and good-and-evil. The picture painted by Townshend is far more nuanced and sceptical - but also never loses sight of the ordinary forms of heroism performed by Irish men and women trapped in extraordinary times.
560 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2013
25 people are currently reading
501 people want to read
About the author
Charles Townshend
42 books16 followersCharles Townshend FBA (born 1945) is a British historian with particular expertise on the historic role of British imperialism in Ireland and Palestine.
Townshend is currently Professor of International History at Keele University. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2008.
Townshend is currently Professor of International History at Keele University. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 6, 2019
This book just came off as being too scholarly for my liking. It's exactly what you expect from a history book about a certain short period of time, but I do think the book focused far too much on a space of 7 years when it could have factored in so many other crucial events in Irish Republican history. Where are the mentions of the 1924 Boundary Commission, the 1937 Constitution and Ireland leaving the Commonwealth and formally becoming a Republic in 1949?
I appreciate Townshend's thematic intention on only writing about 1916-1923, but how could there not at least be brief passages of the Ulster plantations, the mismanagement of famines, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement in a book dedicated to a successful/semi-successful Irish movement against British subjugation? Not even a passing mention in the introduction or conclusion? The absence of these topics means that this book is only really recommended to those who already have a detailed understanding of Irish history, and not those seeking to understand at least in basic terms the underlying motivations and eventual effects of Irish separatism.
I did get a good understanding of the Republican movement but there were several passages I just had to skim through because they were filled with unimportant details. Townshend is a good writer - all this book needed was more detail on other significant timelines which could easily have been accommodated.
I appreciate Townshend's thematic intention on only writing about 1916-1923, but how could there not at least be brief passages of the Ulster plantations, the mismanagement of famines, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement in a book dedicated to a successful/semi-successful Irish movement against British subjugation? Not even a passing mention in the introduction or conclusion? The absence of these topics means that this book is only really recommended to those who already have a detailed understanding of Irish history, and not those seeking to understand at least in basic terms the underlying motivations and eventual effects of Irish separatism.
I did get a good understanding of the Republican movement but there were several passages I just had to skim through because they were filled with unimportant details. Townshend is a good writer - all this book needed was more detail on other significant timelines which could easily have been accommodated.
January 19, 2018
Brilliant account of both the Anglo-Irish War and the Irish Civil War. The book is primarily focused on the political decision making of the British, Pro-Treaty Nationalists, and Anti-Treaty IRA and how they evolved from 1916 to 1924. The military campaign is discussed in a sort of nebulous way that accurately portrays the difficulty in finding concrete information about the Anglo-Irish War from either Irish or British accounts. The final section on the birth of the Free State and the Irish Civil War is greatly informative and puts into perspective the competing leaders and ideologies that influenced and emerged from the conflict.
November 10, 2025
In this follow-up to his earlier Easter 1916, Charles Townshend picks up the story of the struggle for Irish independence from the aftermath of the Rising. He charts the re-organisation of the Volunteers, the rise of Sinn Féin and the 1918 election, the War of Independence and the Civil War, ending his main account in 1923. I don’t think this functions particularly well as an introduction or primer, as Townshend assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader of the chronology, the players, and even of the organisation of both the British state and the Irish counter-state. Parts of his account are chronological, and others are thematic, which at times makes it difficult to follow. These problems are structural rather than stylistic, as Townshend’s writing is excellent. He is consistently engaging and clinical in his analysis, often blunt, and occasionally amusing. One particularly memorable passage relates to the efforts of the British security forces to disrupt Republican fundraising, and the response of the Minister of Finance, Michael Collins: “This 'interference' went on, and was more threateningly supplemented during the winter by British investigations of the undercover bank accounts used to conceal the Republic's funds. Collins, a finance minister with the unusual advantage of also running a death squad, would respond lethally by having the principal investigator, Alan Bell, hauled off a Dublin tram and assassinated in March 1920.”
One thing that Townshend does particularly well is to unpack the nature of Irish Republicanism in this period and how it differed from similar movements in continental Europe. In brief, Irish Republicanism is nationalistic and not ideological. As Townshend explains, “if there was, as has been perceptively suggested, a key shift from the 'men of words' who had led the 1916 rebellion to the 'men of action' who organized the revolutionary movement at the end of the war, the implication might be that the 'republic' they built was concrete rather than abstract, practical rather than symbolic…Ideology does not figure prominently in most accounts of the radicalisation and mobilisation of the national movement.” In other words, the motivations of Irish Republicans were essentially nationalistic, aimed at independence from Britain. Townshend unpacks this as he explains that, “Irish historical experience does seem to have engineered a kind of exceptionalism in the ideological sphere. The polarisation of the middle class in nineteenth-century Europe - notably in France, 'where village teacher and parish priest faced each other across a deep ideological divide' was absent in Ireland. Nationality trumped all political ideas, whether of left or right. Irish nationality was embraced almost as a religious conviction, its truth self-evident. National sentiment was pervasive - a viscerally absorbed story of oppression and expropriation, based on an assumption of the 'righteousness and exclusivity' of a historically distinct people.”
Interestingly, while the split wasn’t realised until after the Treaty was signed in 1921, Townshend identifies a critical fault line within the Republican movement before then. He sees one group (that eventually crystallised into the pro-Treatyites) as more realistic/pragmatic and focused on building the shadow state that would bring an independent Ireland into being. The other group, who would eventually become the anti-Treaty Republicans, were somewhat more romantic/idealistic and saw an oath to the Crown and the Partition of Northern Ireland as absolute red lines. While Townshend’s sympathies clearly lie more with the pro-Treaty side in the Civil War, it is difficult to argue with his analysis. Analysing the end of the Civil War, Townshend comments that, “A fortnight after Lynch's death, de Valera issued his order to the 'Soldiers of the Republic, Legion of the Rearguard', declaring that 'the Republic can no longer be defended successfully by your arms.' Military victory 'must be allowed to rest for the moment with those who have destroyed the Republic'. Nearly a month after that, on 24 May, Aiken issued the final command to the IRA to dump its arms. There were no negotiations, no truce terms: the Republic simply melted back into the realm of the imagination…it remained a projection of political imagination rather than a functioning political structure.” At the same time, “perhaps against the odds, the emergent Irish state - however tyrannical it seemed to its republican victims - became a remarkably stable democracy…In 1914 Ireland, like much of Europe, was spoiling for a fight. In 1921, like Europe, it was war-weary, and this weariness allowed the 'realism' of those who accepted the Treaty to have a purchase on public opinion…de Valera maintained that the Republic could not exist while Ireland was divided. The state he redesigned through his 1937 constitution was essentially republican, but it had to wait until the descendants of the pro-Treaty side returned to power a decade later before it was formally designated a republic. By that time, the real political independence of Ireland had been conclusively demonstrated. Britain responded to the declaration of the Republic in 1949 with the Northern Ireland Act - guaranteeing that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK as long as a majority of its population wanted this, but not with violence. More crucially, the assertion of Irish neutrality during the Second World War had been maintained in spite of intense British (and American) pressure. The old belief that only direct control of Ireland could guarantee Britain's security had been finally scotched. It had proved, as Collins believed, that Britain no longer had the power or the will to coerce Ireland. The fight for independence had, in that sense, been truly won.”
In Collins' own words, Ireland had obtained the freedom to pursue ultimate freedom. While Townshend is rightly critical of him at points, Collins is undoubtedly the standout figure of the period from an Irish perspective. He (along with others, it must be said) identified and executed the strategy that would secure independence, and that laid the first foundations for Ireland's ongoing success: building a credible state in advance of actual independence, and ensuring that the political cost to Britain of maintaining control of Ireland was too high. While small in scale compared to similar events on mainland Europe, Townshend doesn’t shy away from the ugliness of the struggle for independence, whether the brutality and atrocities committed by the British security forces, the sectarian nature of much IRA violence, or the bitter intra-community nature of the Civil War. All in all, this is a compelling and thought-provoking study of a critical period in Irish history, and one which has framed the politics of both Northern Ireland and the Republic for the last century. A more detailed and coherent account of the actual events of 1918-1923 would undoubtedly have pushed this book from 4 to 5 stars for me, but it is still definitely worth your time to read and digest it.
One thing that Townshend does particularly well is to unpack the nature of Irish Republicanism in this period and how it differed from similar movements in continental Europe. In brief, Irish Republicanism is nationalistic and not ideological. As Townshend explains, “if there was, as has been perceptively suggested, a key shift from the 'men of words' who had led the 1916 rebellion to the 'men of action' who organized the revolutionary movement at the end of the war, the implication might be that the 'republic' they built was concrete rather than abstract, practical rather than symbolic…Ideology does not figure prominently in most accounts of the radicalisation and mobilisation of the national movement.” In other words, the motivations of Irish Republicans were essentially nationalistic, aimed at independence from Britain. Townshend unpacks this as he explains that, “Irish historical experience does seem to have engineered a kind of exceptionalism in the ideological sphere. The polarisation of the middle class in nineteenth-century Europe - notably in France, 'where village teacher and parish priest faced each other across a deep ideological divide' was absent in Ireland. Nationality trumped all political ideas, whether of left or right. Irish nationality was embraced almost as a religious conviction, its truth self-evident. National sentiment was pervasive - a viscerally absorbed story of oppression and expropriation, based on an assumption of the 'righteousness and exclusivity' of a historically distinct people.”
Interestingly, while the split wasn’t realised until after the Treaty was signed in 1921, Townshend identifies a critical fault line within the Republican movement before then. He sees one group (that eventually crystallised into the pro-Treatyites) as more realistic/pragmatic and focused on building the shadow state that would bring an independent Ireland into being. The other group, who would eventually become the anti-Treaty Republicans, were somewhat more romantic/idealistic and saw an oath to the Crown and the Partition of Northern Ireland as absolute red lines. While Townshend’s sympathies clearly lie more with the pro-Treaty side in the Civil War, it is difficult to argue with his analysis. Analysing the end of the Civil War, Townshend comments that, “A fortnight after Lynch's death, de Valera issued his order to the 'Soldiers of the Republic, Legion of the Rearguard', declaring that 'the Republic can no longer be defended successfully by your arms.' Military victory 'must be allowed to rest for the moment with those who have destroyed the Republic'. Nearly a month after that, on 24 May, Aiken issued the final command to the IRA to dump its arms. There were no negotiations, no truce terms: the Republic simply melted back into the realm of the imagination…it remained a projection of political imagination rather than a functioning political structure.” At the same time, “perhaps against the odds, the emergent Irish state - however tyrannical it seemed to its republican victims - became a remarkably stable democracy…In 1914 Ireland, like much of Europe, was spoiling for a fight. In 1921, like Europe, it was war-weary, and this weariness allowed the 'realism' of those who accepted the Treaty to have a purchase on public opinion…de Valera maintained that the Republic could not exist while Ireland was divided. The state he redesigned through his 1937 constitution was essentially republican, but it had to wait until the descendants of the pro-Treaty side returned to power a decade later before it was formally designated a republic. By that time, the real political independence of Ireland had been conclusively demonstrated. Britain responded to the declaration of the Republic in 1949 with the Northern Ireland Act - guaranteeing that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK as long as a majority of its population wanted this, but not with violence. More crucially, the assertion of Irish neutrality during the Second World War had been maintained in spite of intense British (and American) pressure. The old belief that only direct control of Ireland could guarantee Britain's security had been finally scotched. It had proved, as Collins believed, that Britain no longer had the power or the will to coerce Ireland. The fight for independence had, in that sense, been truly won.”
In Collins' own words, Ireland had obtained the freedom to pursue ultimate freedom. While Townshend is rightly critical of him at points, Collins is undoubtedly the standout figure of the period from an Irish perspective. He (along with others, it must be said) identified and executed the strategy that would secure independence, and that laid the first foundations for Ireland's ongoing success: building a credible state in advance of actual independence, and ensuring that the political cost to Britain of maintaining control of Ireland was too high. While small in scale compared to similar events on mainland Europe, Townshend doesn’t shy away from the ugliness of the struggle for independence, whether the brutality and atrocities committed by the British security forces, the sectarian nature of much IRA violence, or the bitter intra-community nature of the Civil War. All in all, this is a compelling and thought-provoking study of a critical period in Irish history, and one which has framed the politics of both Northern Ireland and the Republic for the last century. A more detailed and coherent account of the actual events of 1918-1923 would undoubtedly have pushed this book from 4 to 5 stars for me, but it is still definitely worth your time to read and digest it.
February 6, 2017
A much needed deep look into the emergence of the Republic of Ireland - including the Irish struggles with the British Empire and the Irish civil war. This confused and confusing period in Irish history requires a dispassionate and detailed examination, which is what Townshend gives the reader. In particular the Irish civil war is a highly contested and contentious topic, still bringing up strong emotions for many in Ireland. Townshend dissects the motivations and actions of the various players, looking behind the rhetoric and the disagreements. Highly recommended if you are interested in understanding Ireland's recent history.
January 30, 2020
Charles Townshend has an unfortunate way of writing. He uses words as a way of muddying the water instead of clarifying matters.
Gave up on p53 after this sentence "Irish Republicanism...has been said to hang together in a logically anomalous but psychologically satisfying way".
Ah now, shenanigans, what are you on about?
Takes ideas that are simple and earthy and makes them abstract and intellectual.
Might be grand if you're writing a PHD or something. Incredible level of detail in it to be fair, to a fault sometimes.
I'll need to find another book to cover this period of Irish history because this one isn't for me.
Gave up on p53 after this sentence "Irish Republicanism...has been said to hang together in a logically anomalous but psychologically satisfying way".
Ah now, shenanigans, what are you on about?
Takes ideas that are simple and earthy and makes them abstract and intellectual.
Might be grand if you're writing a PHD or something. Incredible level of detail in it to be fair, to a fault sometimes.
I'll need to find another book to cover this period of Irish history because this one isn't for me.
Read
August 3, 2016A gentle antidote to my romantic notions of the Irish civil war but the writer made too many assumptions about previous knowledge of the period. Through, well worked and perhaps a bit too academic for my taste in history.
August 3, 2025
Took forever to read but I learned a lot & am glad I stuck with it. Townshend is a good writer but he got bogged down in the details at some points which felt quite tedious (maybe I am just impatient?)
March 10, 2024
I know that I'm really not very good at reading non-fiction, but GoodReads tells me I started this book in May 2023, so it's taken me ten months to finish it! As often happens with non-fiction, I'll read a little bit and then put it down for months at a time before resuming it and wondering why I've got no idea what's going on. I'm guilty of doing that here, but then I made a concerted effort from the start of 2024 to finish it, as a result of which it only took another two and a bit months to finish.
I don't know much about Irish history. Being schooled in Northern Ireland, we got English kings and queens, but nothing at all about Ireland. I've tried to rectify that a bit through my own reading and listening, and this was part of that self-education. But maybe it was the wrong place to start trying to learn about the Irish independence movement. I know so little about this period in history that a detailed account, running at times almost day by day was not a good idea, since I didn't really have any knowledge of the overall shape of events.
Also, I think I learn history best though narrative events. Stories of people and how they were involved with historical events. The names and dates style of history leaves me entirely cold, and that's what this book was. A big list of names (both people and places) and dates. It talked a lot about what the people did (and when) but without really any explanation of why. Some delving into their interior lives might have made a difference.
The book definitely did help cover fill in some of my blank knowledge, however. From the creation of the first Dáil in 1919, to the guerrilla war with Britain to the amazingly quick descent into civil war following the Truce and little glimpses of where things could have gone differently.
For a book called The Republic I was slightly surprised that it didn't actually cover the final transition from Dominion status to full republic. The book really only covered the wars from 1919 - 1923, ending with the end of the civil war. I had to turn to Wikipedia to discover that there was a further constitution in 1937 that created the position of president and abolished the post of Governor-General, and not until 1948 did it declare itself a republic.
I can see that this would be a valuable book for someone already versed in the outlines of the war of independence and who wanted details. But both due to my lack of that knowledge, and the way I prefer to learn about history, it wasn't as useful for me as I'd hoped.
I don't know much about Irish history. Being schooled in Northern Ireland, we got English kings and queens, but nothing at all about Ireland. I've tried to rectify that a bit through my own reading and listening, and this was part of that self-education. But maybe it was the wrong place to start trying to learn about the Irish independence movement. I know so little about this period in history that a detailed account, running at times almost day by day was not a good idea, since I didn't really have any knowledge of the overall shape of events.
Also, I think I learn history best though narrative events. Stories of people and how they were involved with historical events. The names and dates style of history leaves me entirely cold, and that's what this book was. A big list of names (both people and places) and dates. It talked a lot about what the people did (and when) but without really any explanation of why. Some delving into their interior lives might have made a difference.
The book definitely did help cover fill in some of my blank knowledge, however. From the creation of the first Dáil in 1919, to the guerrilla war with Britain to the amazingly quick descent into civil war following the Truce and little glimpses of where things could have gone differently.
For a book called The Republic I was slightly surprised that it didn't actually cover the final transition from Dominion status to full republic. The book really only covered the wars from 1919 - 1923, ending with the end of the civil war. I had to turn to Wikipedia to discover that there was a further constitution in 1937 that created the position of president and abolished the post of Governor-General, and not until 1948 did it declare itself a republic.
I can see that this would be a valuable book for someone already versed in the outlines of the war of independence and who wanted details. But both due to my lack of that knowledge, and the way I prefer to learn about history, it wasn't as useful for me as I'd hoped.
June 23, 2021
I’ve always been fascinated by the 1913 to 1923 period which finally saw Ireland win independence from British rule. For a long time I had been on the look out for a military history but, in truth, one probably doesn’t exist - or couldn’t, guerrilla warfare is primarily political.
Three things stuck with me from this excellent book which seem to be of lasting relevance.
First, are the IRA tactics themselves. They attacked isolated police stations rendering them untenable. The RIC would withdraw to bigger installations surrendering vast tracts of territory in the process. Here, the republicans would set their own government, sort of like ‘autonomous zones’.
Second, is that Britain faced a problem that has plagued liberal democracies ever since. They exist either in a state of peace or war, there is no intermediate stage. But, faced with a campaign like that of the IRA, neither of these states is appropriate. Hence, all manner of fudge as a liberal, democratic government tries to fight a war without admitting that that is what it is doing. No society has successfully solved this yet.
Third, as the Irish accepted the treaty, De Valera pronounced that “the people had no right to do wrong”. There were political choices, in De Valera’s mind, which the people should not be allowed to make and if they did, they were to be resisted by any means necessary. In Ireland in 1922, this meant Civil War. Fortunately, attitudes such as De Valera’s, seen more recently, have had more benign outcomes.
Three things stuck with me from this excellent book which seem to be of lasting relevance.
First, are the IRA tactics themselves. They attacked isolated police stations rendering them untenable. The RIC would withdraw to bigger installations surrendering vast tracts of territory in the process. Here, the republicans would set their own government, sort of like ‘autonomous zones’.
Second, is that Britain faced a problem that has plagued liberal democracies ever since. They exist either in a state of peace or war, there is no intermediate stage. But, faced with a campaign like that of the IRA, neither of these states is appropriate. Hence, all manner of fudge as a liberal, democratic government tries to fight a war without admitting that that is what it is doing. No society has successfully solved this yet.
Third, as the Irish accepted the treaty, De Valera pronounced that “the people had no right to do wrong”. There were political choices, in De Valera’s mind, which the people should not be allowed to make and if they did, they were to be resisted by any means necessary. In Ireland in 1922, this meant Civil War. Fortunately, attitudes such as De Valera’s, seen more recently, have had more benign outcomes.
April 25, 2016
Must be the definitive one volume account of the irish war of independence.
Ranging from high level politics to accounts of ambushes on country roads it gives an honest picture of the war.
Even touching on some sectarian cleansing by the IRA of prodestant areas like bandon
What is surprisingly interesting is the political infighting between pro and anti - treaty volunteer leaders which lead to the irish free state and Cosgraves ruthless war on the anti treaty IRA members
Well worth a read
Ranging from high level politics to accounts of ambushes on country roads it gives an honest picture of the war.
Even touching on some sectarian cleansing by the IRA of prodestant areas like bandon
What is surprisingly interesting is the political infighting between pro and anti - treaty volunteer leaders which lead to the irish free state and Cosgraves ruthless war on the anti treaty IRA members
Well worth a read
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 14, 2022
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3833809.html
This won the Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize in 2015, along with a special mention for The Whole and Rain-Domed Universe, by Colette Bryce. It took me a while to get around to reading it, but I found it a tremendous book - a blow-by-blow account of the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War, looking pretty neutrally at both British and Irish records and coming to some interesting conclusions. Like most Irish people with any interest in history, I was pretty familiar with the outlines of the story, which meant that the new details were very interesting indeed.
Going through it chronologically, there are points of interest in each of the long chapters. The British conceded a massive chunk of territory, quite literally, by evacuating small rural police stations as soon as the first trouble began in mid to late 1919. The Royal Irish Constabulary were more of a paramilitary law enforcement agency than a community police force, but even so, the withdrawal to fortified regional redoubts basically conceded the monopoly on the use of force to the IRA. This created space for the Dáil court system to start functioning a year or so later - the received history is that the Dáil courts were a turning point, but in fact they could not have functioned if the police had been, well, policing.
In 1920 the IRA worked out how to fight a guerilla war more or les from first principles, with ultimately the introduction of the Black and Tans, whose violence shifted what remained of neutral opinion in most of Ireland towards separatism, culminating in Bloody Sunday. This is one part of the generally believed narrative that Townshend confirms. But even so there are some interesting wrinkles. The strike of railway workers - or rather, their refusal to carry British troops on the trains - was a serious blow to British mobility. And also, British policy itself was completely unhinged, with no medium to long term goals - if they were to win the war, what next? But they were too poorly organised to have a chance of winning, with lines of control at the top (and indeed middle) deeply obscure.
1921 saw the two sides edging towards a truce, and eventually to the December 1921 Treaty. What's especially interesting is that both sides were motivated to keep talking because neither believed that they could win if war resumed. My father always used to say that most armies are so badly organised that it's just as well that they only ever have to fight other armies. The turning point here, and I guess I knew this but had not seen it that way before, was the election in May. The British commanders had assured the government at the start of the year that they would have crushed dissent by late spring, so the elections were duly scheduled and organised. But in fact Sinn Féin won every seat outside the new territory of Northern Ireland (er, and Trinity college Dublin), unopposed. As Asquith put it (not quoted by Townshend, but I've seen it elsewhere), London gave Ulster a parliament that it did not particularly want, and the rest of Ireland a parliament which it would not have.
1922-23 saw the difficulties in implementing the Treaty eventually spill over into the Civil War. I had not realised quite how quickly the Republican side basically lost the war by default. They assumed that as in 1919-21, the latent support of the people as a whole would sustain them and delegitimise the Collins / Griffith / Cosgrave government; and they controlled large parts of the south and west of the country, and two small but strategic parts of Dublin. But the Free Staters picked off the areas of Republican strength one by one, and retaliated brutally to individual attacks by executing prisoners; meanwhile the Legion of the Rearguard waited for a popular revolt that never happened.
It's a great chronology. I do have two complaints. There is not enough about Northern Ireland / Ulster; Townshend remarks several times that Collins rather ignored it, but is somewhat guilty of doing the same himself. On the other hand, there is too much about political ideology. The understanding of the Republic mattered a lot to many of the participants, De Valera in particular, and not only him. but I find it personally rather difficult to grasp.
Anyway, this is a great book which anyone interested in that place and time should read.
This won the Christopher Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize in 2015, along with a special mention for The Whole and Rain-Domed Universe, by Colette Bryce. It took me a while to get around to reading it, but I found it a tremendous book - a blow-by-blow account of the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War, looking pretty neutrally at both British and Irish records and coming to some interesting conclusions. Like most Irish people with any interest in history, I was pretty familiar with the outlines of the story, which meant that the new details were very interesting indeed.
Going through it chronologically, there are points of interest in each of the long chapters. The British conceded a massive chunk of territory, quite literally, by evacuating small rural police stations as soon as the first trouble began in mid to late 1919. The Royal Irish Constabulary were more of a paramilitary law enforcement agency than a community police force, but even so, the withdrawal to fortified regional redoubts basically conceded the monopoly on the use of force to the IRA. This created space for the Dáil court system to start functioning a year or so later - the received history is that the Dáil courts were a turning point, but in fact they could not have functioned if the police had been, well, policing.
In 1920 the IRA worked out how to fight a guerilla war more or les from first principles, with ultimately the introduction of the Black and Tans, whose violence shifted what remained of neutral opinion in most of Ireland towards separatism, culminating in Bloody Sunday. This is one part of the generally believed narrative that Townshend confirms. But even so there are some interesting wrinkles. The strike of railway workers - or rather, their refusal to carry British troops on the trains - was a serious blow to British mobility. And also, British policy itself was completely unhinged, with no medium to long term goals - if they were to win the war, what next? But they were too poorly organised to have a chance of winning, with lines of control at the top (and indeed middle) deeply obscure.
1921 saw the two sides edging towards a truce, and eventually to the December 1921 Treaty. What's especially interesting is that both sides were motivated to keep talking because neither believed that they could win if war resumed. My father always used to say that most armies are so badly organised that it's just as well that they only ever have to fight other armies. The turning point here, and I guess I knew this but had not seen it that way before, was the election in May. The British commanders had assured the government at the start of the year that they would have crushed dissent by late spring, so the elections were duly scheduled and organised. But in fact Sinn Féin won every seat outside the new territory of Northern Ireland (er, and Trinity college Dublin), unopposed. As Asquith put it (not quoted by Townshend, but I've seen it elsewhere), London gave Ulster a parliament that it did not particularly want, and the rest of Ireland a parliament which it would not have.
1922-23 saw the difficulties in implementing the Treaty eventually spill over into the Civil War. I had not realised quite how quickly the Republican side basically lost the war by default. They assumed that as in 1919-21, the latent support of the people as a whole would sustain them and delegitimise the Collins / Griffith / Cosgrave government; and they controlled large parts of the south and west of the country, and two small but strategic parts of Dublin. But the Free Staters picked off the areas of Republican strength one by one, and retaliated brutally to individual attacks by executing prisoners; meanwhile the Legion of the Rearguard waited for a popular revolt that never happened.
It's a great chronology. I do have two complaints. There is not enough about Northern Ireland / Ulster; Townshend remarks several times that Collins rather ignored it, but is somewhat guilty of doing the same himself. On the other hand, there is too much about political ideology. The understanding of the Republic mattered a lot to many of the participants, De Valera in particular, and not only him. but I find it personally rather difficult to grasp.
Anyway, this is a great book which anyone interested in that place and time should read.
July 25, 2025
This is a well-written and informative narrative overview of the Irish War of Independence and the civil war that led to the establishment of the Irish Free State between 1918 and 1923. It is heavily focused on the Irish republicans. This does not mean that it is biased but does mean that the reader gets a stronger understanding of how the republican movement developed and then fractured, rather than how the British state tried and failed to overcome the IRA and other likeminded groups. What I found particularly interesting was the way in which the republicans developed an alternative state, with an administrative as well as military structure, well before the Truce and the Treaty. With an impressive use of primary sources, this is a highly recommended perspective.
June 13, 2025
I was very disappointed by this book, and in the end had to stop, roughly 2/3 of the way through. There is no doubt that the author marshals a truly impressive range of sources and gives a genuinely comprehensive account of the period. But it is written with such a lack of flair and such a relentlessly monotonous rhythm that it is almost impossible to devote proper time to reading it. It is dry; it is boring. This is a great pity, because it is so evident that a great deal of hard work went into it.
July 17, 2025
2.5 stars.
I received ‘The Republic’ as a gift. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d have ever picked it up. Probably a good call on my part.
This read like a text book - thoroughly researched and VERY information heavy. It’d be a great addition to a 20th century Irish history class. The information was pretty dry. While I learned a lot, this is definitely not a “fun read” and I personally wouldn’t read it again.
+1 for the correct use of “moot”, though.
Recommend only if you’re looking for an informative text on the Irish Republican years.
I received ‘The Republic’ as a gift. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d have ever picked it up. Probably a good call on my part.
This read like a text book - thoroughly researched and VERY information heavy. It’d be a great addition to a 20th century Irish history class. The information was pretty dry. While I learned a lot, this is definitely not a “fun read” and I personally wouldn’t read it again.
+1 for the correct use of “moot”, though.
Recommend only if you’re looking for an informative text on the Irish Republican years.
December 15, 2018
This was a very informative read for me, who had very little previous knowledge of the Irish fight for Independence. I give the book 5 stars for content and 3 stars for readability. This is a hard read, but worth the effort.
December 29, 2024
Easier to read than the Easter Rising, but my lack of familiarity with most names prevented a deeper understanding of issues. A lot of the text seemed to be more of a recital of events and lacking analysis, which the author definitely had in his arsenal as shown in the conclusion.
March 26, 2024
Fantastic
August 5, 2024
Solid account of the Irish uprising through the end of the Irish Civil War. Only downside of the book was very limited discussion of the Treaty negotiations with the British (and amonst the Irish).
April 21, 2017
Excellent recounting of the Irish War of Independence, beginning with the execution of the Easter Rising leaders and continuing through the end of the Civil War. The text can be a bit dense at times, and it is a slow read (for me, at least), but it is well-sourced, and Townshend gives detail and emotion to the words, bringing you into the pages. There is reference to the leaders of both sides often simply by last name, which if you are not as familiar with them, can be difficult to track and remember who they are. Townshend has an immense grasp of the details, of how each side, British and IV/Sinn Fein, managed the internal difficulties and also how they handled the struggle with the other side. Excellent read, but it would behoove readers to have some familiarity with the conflict and the players for a better experience.
Read
July 6, 2018It feels like it took me an age to finish The Republic but it was worth it, letting me soak in all of the knowledge imparted onto me during my read.
I’ve been highly interested in Irish history for a while now and what better thing could I think of doing than to read an actual book on Irish history? The Republic mainly focuses on the Irish War Of Independence and the Civil War, looking at all of the political factors brewing under the surface and the overspilling of violence into Ireland itself. It also made several things clear, enhancing my understanding of the causes of the Civil War itself and taught me several new things about both conflicts, also briefly touching on how the subsequent Free State went on to deal with the IRA and sectarian conflict, things I didn’t even know about before.
Overall an informative, interesting and refreshing read.
I’ve been highly interested in Irish history for a while now and what better thing could I think of doing than to read an actual book on Irish history? The Republic mainly focuses on the Irish War Of Independence and the Civil War, looking at all of the political factors brewing under the surface and the overspilling of violence into Ireland itself. It also made several things clear, enhancing my understanding of the causes of the Civil War itself and taught me several new things about both conflicts, also briefly touching on how the subsequent Free State went on to deal with the IRA and sectarian conflict, things I didn’t even know about before.
Overall an informative, interesting and refreshing read.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews