The history of English colonialism in Ireland goes all the way back to the 12th century. There have been numerous instances of “Irish struggle against England” over the centuries since then. To discuss all of it would take all day, even in an incredibly simplified form. However, I am naturally going to assume you are referring specifically to the period of the Irish War of Independence (ie. 1910s/20s). The framing of your question means that you are touching on a rather knotty theoretical issue as well however. What actually makes something a “revolution”? In contrast to to say a “rebellion”, a “revolt”, a “war of national liberation” or some other form of state-directed violence? Is a “War of Independence” the same thing as a revolution? If not, then what are the differences?

Your question hasn’t received an answer yet, perhaps because it is most definitely a complex topic that is hard to fit into a short, coherent answer fit for public consumption. Well, I will take a stab at at least offering a starting point for you. Inevitably this will be a very long post, probably multiple posts, perhaps somewhat rambling too so if anything is unclear or you would like some further elaboration then by all means just ask. I will need to first delve into the idea of “revolution” and what this means for the Irish situation, and then discuss the events themselves and what it would mean that they “succeeded”.

Part One

Certainly something significant happened in Ireland in this period. The issue surrounding just how revolutionary the “Irish Revolution” was is something which became a feature of historiography particularly in the past few decades. Prior to the 1990s the term “revolution” had been used in a few studies but often in a rather uncritical manner, with little if any reflection on the conceptual suitability of the term itself. Since the 90s however, there has been significant reflection and debate surrounding this. In 1999 David Fitzpatrick published a collection of essays entitled “Revolution? Ireland 1917-23”. The question mark in that title deliberately challenging readers to consider this very point. For his own part, David Fitzpatrick was happy to accept that - with a few caveats - there had indeed been an Irish revolution in this period. According to Fitzpatrick:

the alterations in Irish political organisation were sufficiently lasting and profound to merit the term “revolution”

Of course, others have proved less willing to accept that there had been a revolution. Tom Garvin for instance argues that there has never been a completed revolution in Ireland, only a successive series of abortive attempts to start one. Garvin sets this against

a backdrop of a classic process of democratic reformism in both parts of Ireland, both before and since 1922.

This does also touch on a very common idea within the historiography of the 1910s/20s, that Ireland had in fact experienced an “unfinished revolution”. This is the idea that a revolution was begun but that, ultimately, the possibilities for genuine social change were never seized upon. In spite of a significant labour movement in this period the only that changed was the leadership of the country, with the ruling political class shifting to an Irish Republican elite. This is often expressed in the rather glib formulation that the only thing that changed following the Irish Revolution was the colour of the post boxes from red to green. If we were to use the definition of a revolution provided by Christopher Lasch as:

an attempt... to seize state power on the part of political forces avowedly opposed not merely to the existing regime but to the existing social order as a whole."

Then what happened in Ireland certainly does not qualify. But then the same may be said of other so-called revolutions as well. Naturally, there are other definitions of revolution and as Rod Aya has noted:

It is hopeless...to try to isolate an exclusive set of "true" revolutions according to standards of mass participation, ideological novelty, the class composition of the new polity, or the nature and extent of resulting social change.

Reality does not often fit as neatly into some of these overarching theories.

Certainly the one thing that can’t be denied is that Ireland didn’t experience a social revolution. This was no Bolshevik Revolution. No one seized the means of production (the Limerick Soviet aside, which only lasted a matter of weeks). It did not see a rearrangement of socio-economic hierarchies or a massive redistribution of wealth. There was a degree of overlap between socialist politics and the pursuit of independence - James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army being the most obvious example - but this was not uniform. After Connolly’s execution especially many socialists were hesitant to become too involved with an overtly nationalist political struggle.

The Irish Revolution was therefore led by individuals who were radical in terms of their willingness to use political violence, but not necessarily radical in terms of their politics. Perhaps this is the reason that almost all large-scale comparative studies of revolution have ignored Ireland. However, I would say that the historiographical consensus now stands that yes, there was some sort of revolution in Ireland during this period. The issue then remains as to how best to characterise it. If it wasn’t a social revolution then what sort of revolution was it?

One very popular definition of revolution is that provided by Charles Tilly:

A revolution is a transfer of power over a state in the course of which at least two distinct blocs make incompatible claims to control the state, and some significant portion of the population subject to the state’s jurisdiction acquiesces in the claims of each bloc. A full revolutionary sequence thus runs from a sundering of sovereignty and hegemony through a period of struggle to reestablishment of sovereignty and hegemony under new management.We can usefully distinguish between revolutionary situations and outcomes. A revolutionary situation consists of an open division of sovereignty, while a revolutionary outcome entails a definitive transfer of power.

This is a great definition as it places an emphasis on both the transfer of power over a state as well as the support of a significant section of the population. The crucial aspect is Tilly’s conception of “multiple sovereignty”, which sees the materialisation of two entirely incompatible claims to the state authority, popular support and the monopoly of violence. The emergence of these competing claims splits the polity. It is this concept which, in Tilly’ s view, separates a revolution from a rebellion, or other social movements, which may hold specific grievances towards the state but which do not actually contest the basis of its authority. It also separates a revolution from something like a coup d’etat which is nothing more than a rotation of political entrepreneurs who seize power for themselves.

Ireland may have seen a shifting of political elites as noted above, but the War of Independence (1919-21), unlike the 1916 Easter Rising or the Fenian Rising in 1867, also saw a huge degree of popular support for their cause. Those earlier Risings may have seen the brief appearance of a revolutionary situation, but they did not crystallise into actual revolutions or result in a revolutionary outcome. This is because they did not possess any kind of popular support whatsoever. Likewise popular movements in Irish history such as the Land War in the 1870s/80s, or even the campaign for Catholic Emancipation and the Repeal of the Union a few decades earlier, where powerful political moments in their own right but failed to produce a revolutionary situation as they did not challenge the ideological basis of the state.

The War of Independence saw the coalescence of both of these factors, even if it may still be criticised from a Left-wing perspective as failing to capitalise on the opportunities for lasting social and economic change. The meeting of the First Dáil (Irish Parliament) in 1919 and their declaration of Irish Independence provided an alternative claim to control the state. The year prior Sinn Féin had won a landslide victory in the 1918 General Election, campaigning on the basis that they would establish an independent Irish Republic. Although not as connected as the pop history view would have it, the IRA in turn drew legitimacy from the 1918 Election and the Dáil. Both provided a mandate for resistance against the British State which refused to acquiesce to the political will of the people, even if the specifics of armed action at a local level were sometimes in question.

In light of all this I would say that the “Irish War of Independence”, or the “Irish Revolution” or the Irish struggle against England as you put it, can certainly be considered a Revolution in this period. However, now we have yet another thorny issue to deal with. What exactly is “this period”...

Will leave that for part two however, which will hopefully deal a bit more with the specifics of the historical events.