‘Irish Rebellions were dealt with more

effectively than those within England’

How far do you agree?
When assessing how effectively rebellions were dealt with we can look at three things: if a battle
took place, the duration of the revolt and whether concessions were given or not.

If a battle was part of a rebellion it can be seen as being dealt with less effectively as there is
never any real need to have a battle and nearly all the rebellion could have been settled peacefully.
Irish rebellions had more battles than English rebellions showing that English revolts were dealt with
more effectively. In Ireland, nearly every rebellion had a battle. For example in Tyrone’s revolt the
Irish had victories at Curlew Pass and Yellow Ford but lost to the English at Kinsale which effectively
ended the revolt. As the Irish had military success against the English this can be seen to show the
rebellion being dealt with less effectively. Another example of Irish victories are in the 2 nd Geraldine
Rebellion and O’Neil’s revolt. In the 2 nd Geraldine Rebellion the Irish won the Battle of Glenmalure
and in O’Neil’s revolt they won the Battle of the Red Sagums. However, both of these battles were
fought using guerrilla tactics rather than open field warfare which made it easier for the Irish to win
the battles. Looking at English rebellions gives a very different picture. The Pilgrimage of Grace had
no battle despite the size, numbering 40,000, and the large noble backing. If a battle was fought the
rebels would have almost certainly won and succeeded in their aims. However, there was no battle,
and this shows that the rebellion was dealt with effectively. The same applies for Wyatt’s revolt in
which there was no battle despite the considerable military experience of Wyatt; one would think he
would want to use that to his advantage. However, some English rebellions did have battles such as
the Cornish Rebellion with the Battle of Blackheath. However the rebels lost the battle unlike many
of the Irish battles. Nevertheless, English rebellions had less battles than Irish rebellions showing that
English rebellions were dealt with more effectively than those in Ireland.

Irish rebellions carried on for longer than English rebellions. This can be seen as Irish
rebellions being dealt with less effectively but also that the Tudor government realised that they
could prioritise things over rebellions in Ireland. In Ireland every revolt went on for at least a year.
O’Neil’s revolt was from 1558-67, a span of 9 years and Fitzgerald’s Munster Rebellions was from
1569-73, a span of 4 years. However, the longest was Tyrone’s revolt which was from 1593-1603, a
span of 10 years. These figures can be seen in two different ways. Firstly that the English did not deal
with Irish rebellions very effectively, or secondly that the Tudor government realised that the Irish
rebellions did not hold a serious threat and so other things could be prioritised over the rebellions,
such as revolts in England. Looking at English rebellions, nearly all were under a year long apart from
the pretender’s revolts of Simnel and Warbeck. The Pilgrimage of Grace only lasted from October to
December of 1536 and Wyatt’s Rebellion took place during 1554. Moreover, the Northern Revolt of
1569 only lasted 5 weeks. This can again be interpreted in two ways. Firstly that English rebellions
were dealt with more effectively than those in Ireland and secondly that the Tudor government
prioritised English rebellions over Irish Rebellions. Therefore, English rebellions were shorter than
Irish rebellions showing they were dealt with more effectively; however it also shows that Tudor
governments realised they could prioritise different things of revolts in Ireland.

Giving concessions can be seen as more effectively dealing with a revolt. This can be seen
both in Ireland and England, where in Ireland the concessions were all part of a coherent plan.
However, the English revolts where concessions were given were because they could not be put
down with force. In O’Neil’s revolt, in Ireland, concessions were given to give time for Elizabeth to
pout down the revolt through the use of troops and misleading paperwork. If Elizabeth had not given
concessions O’Neil may have succeeded in some of his aims. The same can be said for Tyrone’s
revolt in which concessions were given to give time for Elizabeth to move troops from the
Netherlands to Ireland. If this time hadn’t been made Tyrone, with the help of the Spanish, could
have pushed all the English forces out of Ireland. In contrast to this, concessions given in English
revolts were there for a different purpose. The Pilgrimage of Grace was put down with the main
promise to make a Parliament of the North. However, this never came to fruition and so it can be
assumed Henry VIII used the concession as a tactic to put down the revolt because it was so large;
and with no intention of actually going through with his promises. This can also be seen by Henry in
the Resistance to the Amicable Grant. However this time Henry completely backed down because of
the threat posed by the number of possible rebels. Henry could also lay the blame on Wolsey instead
of himself. I think that the use of concessions was used effectively in both Irish and English
rebellions, maybe more in Irish rebellions as eventually they were ended whereas in the Resistance
to the Amicable Grant, the rebels got all their concessions given.
In conclusion, rebellions in Ireland were not dealt with more effectively than those in
England because many battles were fought (and lost) in Irish rebellions whereas a limited number
were fought in England. Also Irish rebellions were always longer than their English counterparts and
when concessions were given to was for the good of putting down the revolt, seen in Ireland and
England.