Irish Times Article about Wellington

Certainly, 1798 was an ugly, bloody episode characterised by incompetence and vindictiveness on both sides, which did nothing either for the cause of Irish nationalism or the reputation of British rule in Ireland (not to mention French expeditionary operations) although distinguished officers like Cornwallis and Moore seem to have emerged with their reputations intact.

As for the sphere of military history, maybe the old chestnut about not claiming honours for "a war with our kith and kin" has some relevance, but clearly the main events were taking place far away and it is  indeed more edifying to read about the Peninsula or Waterloo than a catalogue of misery in an inconclusive side show. After all, we’re only just beginning to see books come out about the campaigns in the Low Countries and the West Indies.

There is an echo here with our debate on slavery and abolitionists and the current BLM conversation. History is a hot potato in much of modern identity politics and in many recent conflicts and their aftermath. It is quite natural if ‘we’, and by that I mean we historians, professional or amateur, worry that we might not possess the right identity to be credible or not attract unwelcome attention. I certainly realise that I might be too white to examine issues of race, too male to examine gender history, too able-bodied to touch on the history of the struggle for disabled rights. Somehow, and don’t ask me how because I don’t really understand it, I would feel more comfortable, regardless of their conclusions, if the author came from the ‘politically correct’ (ie the perceived as oppressed) identity. I think though that guilt is putting it a bit strong. I know that in some cultures there seems to be few such blushes. In the US for example there seems to be no shortage of middle-class white men queuing up to write about Custer and the Indian Wars. Or that some issues don’t excite that reaction, I don’t think that @Zack White is too law abiding to write about crime and punishment (OMG Zack, I realise I may have made a terrible assumption........). I know that we should feel that we should academically we should rise above such reticence. Like judges, we should be above being influenced by our own heritage. However, in the world of identity politics, it just doesn’t work like that. Remember also that it is not just authors who might be discouraged, publishers also play their part. They will be driven by the commercials, and I wonder what the demand is in Ireland (surely the target market?) for a book about the 1798 rebellion examining the atrocities of both sides, written by a former British Army officer?

Ah, 'you'.

No offence intended. You did say "we."

Your perception of British historians trying to ignore, or being reluctant to mention the 1798 Rebellion may be valid but unless you have direct evidence, it would be difficult to characterise any one scholar's direction of their attention towards or away from a given subject. Unless for instance you can cite one historian's expressed discomfort, the observation must remain your own assumption. Whose superiority complex do you have in mind (apart from, presumably, your own)?

"Particularly the atrocities" was your point Geraint. I felt it worth setting in context.

Taking in the various intervening comments above, it's worth pointing out that with reference to the atrocities mentioned earlier, the greater proportion of casualties inflicted by the United Irish rebels in 1798 were civilians, many murdered in circumstances of considerable brutality. This contributed a retributive quality to the fighting and subsequent repression, especially in the case of government forces raised locally.

@Geraint Thatcher Maybe not so much today, but at the height of the troubles, I could see why not many of them thought it the risk!

I don't think so David. Just look at the 1798 Rebellion. How many British historians write about that. Besides Pakenham (whose Anglo- Irish anyway) there's been not 1. Why not because it makes them uncomfortable. Much easier to write about the Peninsular War instead

A terrorist and a rebel are not synonymous. Each situation should be evaluated on its own.

Terrorists generally target and murder civilians as a primary target; rebels may or may not, usually the latter.

@Kevin F. Kiley Name me a government that is relaxed about it? The first duty of any state is it’s preservation. Problem is that one man’s terrorist (rebel) is another man’s freedom fighter (father of the nation).

The British, like the Romans, were very unhappy (read intolerant) about revolts and rebellions, and were harsh putting them down. Another example is the Great Indian Mutiny in 1857.

Funnily enough I am planning an Irish month in March on The Napoleonicist. It may well come up then.