Armies of Exiles

[Abdul Goatherd]

So, just writing up on the 1867 Fenian Rising in Ireland, it made me wonder how on earth an army of exiles expected to ever be successful. I don't mean exiled army, driven out of the country returning back. Or an army of exiles as a column of a regular army. I mean, an army entirely recruited from emigrants abroad, via secret societies. This seemed particularly common strategy among nationalists in the 1820s-1860s - in Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland among others. But they all seem hopelessly idealistic and doomed from the start.

I can't really think of successful examples. But I can think of over a dozen attempts. What blueprint were they using? It doesn't seem they had any plan beyond hoping that "the people will rise" or "a foreign power will intervene".

Can you think of any successful examples?

 

[Green Beret]

So, just writing up on the 1867 Fenian Rising in Ireland, it made me wonder how on earth an army of exiles expected to ever be successful. I don't mean exiled army, driven out of the country returning back. Or an army of exiles as a column of a regular army. I mean, an army entirely recruited from emigrants abroad, via secret societies. This seemed particularly common strategy among nationalists in the 1820s-1860s - in Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland among others. But they all seem hopelessly idealistic and doomed from the start.

I can't really think of successful examples. But I can think of over a dozen attempts. What blueprint were they using? It doesn't seem they had any plan beyond hoping that "the people will rise" or "a foreign power will intervene".

Can you think of any successful examples?

From memory I believe the idea behind the Fenian invasions of Canada is that they would secure the country and then 'something something something' which would end up as a trade of Canada for Irish independence. Now the only reason they got to the level of farce rather than drunken idiots talking tall tales in the pub is of course because previously an enormous cohort of Irishmen had served in the armies of the Union and Confederacy during the Civil War, and that same conflict had left the United States with a lingering distrust of the British. That said, similar practices of 'infiltration' occurred in the British Army during the same period, and there existed a fear amongst British Army officers that such infiltrators might upset the reliability of the Irish element in the Army (which is pretty substantial, being about the same in size as the English contingent in 1830).

I think one has to conclude, given the utter hopelessness of these various plots and plans, that there existed an element of martyrdom amongst the rebels, perhaps an irrepressible desire to draw attention to the various outrages (perceived and real) of British rule in Ireland. For example, as insane as the Fenian invasions sound, bear in mind that only a few years earlier a significant contingent of Irishmen (more than a thousand) went to fight for the vestiges of the Papal States and three decades later many would fight alongside the Boers during their conflict with the British. Perhaps the most insane is the story of an abortive rebellion against British rule carried out by a few dozen soldiers of the Connaught Rangers...whilst stationed in the middle of British India. I suppose one argument might be that such men intended to awaken public outrage, which certainly seems like the idea behind the 1916 Rising, which made very little military sense, but managed to provoke a war eventually following the British treatment of the rebels.

I'm racking my brains trying to think of a successful example of the 'exile army' and the best example I could think of would be the Redshirt invasion of Sicily, which doesn't really fit your model as it had a health helping of Sardinian government involvement and seemed to succeed only because the Neapolitan authorities were even more badly situated, but I think it might be the closest to a successful example.

 

[bz249]

Ok not exactly exiles but what about the Expedition of the Thousand? Sure Savoy might have done it with regular troops, but initially there was a band against a state and the band won decisively.

A less successful one is the Rakoczi's War of Independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rákóczi's_War_of_Independence
While capitulated at the end, initially they also had the snowball effect and from 1703 to 1710 they controlled a significant portion of Hungary. Sure that most of the Hapsburg troops were fighting in the War of Spanish Succession helped a lot.

 

[Gil galad]

Exiles have a coloured view of what's going on in their country. Every small sign of discontent in their country of birth is blown out of proportion to become signs of open rebellion when they discuss these things among themselves. But in the end they are rarely if ever grounded in reality.

This happened not only with the fenians, but also the English and Scottish jacobites, the French emigrees and white Russians.

 

[olm]

Napoleon conquered France with a tiny bunch of exiles from Elba.

 

[Gil galad]

Napoleon conquered France with a tiny bunch of exiles from Elba.

Not really..

 

[IsadorBG]

The Bolshevik party ?

Free France ?

I guess it depends if foreign backing counts or not.

 

[Jopa79]

Hi Abdul and the others!

This is my suggestion:

After the Finnish Civil War the Communist Party of Finland was in exile in the Soviet Union. In the 1920's and 1930's the Soviets modified the appearance of this party to meet their likings. During the outbreak of the Winter War the Soviets also created an army, the Finnish People's Army for this Terijoki Government led by Finnish emigrant communist, Otto-Wille Kuusinen. The Terijoki Government, a puppet regime was the only Finnish Government recognized by the Soviets in 1939 and early in 1940.

The Supreme Commander of the Finnish People's Army was Akseli Anttila, in HOI4 PDX has given Anttila a role as a Finnish military theorist but historically Anttila did his life-time work for the Soviets. The Finnish People's Army was supposed to supplant the Army of Finland in the Soviet controlled Finland. The army was not supposed to do any combat, but had an ultimate role for the planned Soviet Victory Parade in Helsinki and raising the Red Flag over the Presidental Palace, Helsinki.

Although, the war prolonged and the Finnish People's Army gained combat experience for example during the last weeks and days of the Winter War in fierce fighting on the frozen Bay of Vyborg.

This unusual army was gathered and drafted from among the following nationalities and communities:

• Finnish Soviet emigrants
• Finnish Americans (returned to the Soviet Union during the Finnish Quest for Ideal Community)
• Ingrians
• Soviet Karelians
• Vepsians

Because the original objective having 80 000 of manpower in the Finnish People's Army was not completed during the draft and gathering it was reinforced later with other nationalities, like the Russian, the Ukrainian and the Belarusian. The equipment and clothing was taken from the former Polish Army during the Soviet invasion of Poland.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Yeah, the Italian Redshirts were the closest I could think of.

The type I'm talking about is things like the German Democratic League of Georg Herwegh of 1848 made up of German exiles in France, recruited with the pitch "Hello. We're collecting a group of exiled students, writers and immigrant artisans here in Paris, drilling them for a couple of weeks, and then marching off to invade and conquer Germany. It'll be a few hundred of us taking on the armies of Prussia and Austria. The French government has promised us some muskets. Would you like to sign up?"

Really? I mean, really?

It's one thing to organize an uprising inside your country, where you are close to the ground and have better knowledge of the conditions, and have developed local cells and support networks. But an army of out-of-touch exiles is naive in the extreme.

 

[Green Beret]

It's one thing to organize an uprising inside your country, where you are close to the ground and have better knowledge of the conditions, and have developed local cells and support networks. But an army of out-of-touch exiles is naive in the extreme.

To be fair, it worked out for the Bourbons, it just took nigh on three decades, an international coalition consisting of most of Europe's powers and the greatest conflict in Europe until WW1.

There might be a problem of perception here though - we might look at it from the perspective of 'bah crazy exiles up to no good, didn't they know they had no chance' - and certainly from 1900 onwards one might make that case. However, for people at the time, they might be looking at the various French Revolutions, the Spanish guerilla warfare during the Napoleonic conflict, heck even the various wars for independence in the Americas, as examples of what 'the people' can do. Now I know none of these strictly fit your model, although one might consider foreign occupation of major domestic centres as an exile of sorts, but they might have been sufficient for contemporaries to rally to a banner of rebellion. Come to think of it, I wonder if the various campaigns of SImon Bolivar might be what you're looking for - you've got exile, returning successfully, new states, talk about ticking boxes...

 

[Barsoom]

Yeah, the Italian Redshirts were the closest I could think of.

The type I'm talking about is things like the German Democratic League of Georg Herwegh of 1848 made up of German exiles in France, recruited with the pitch "Hello. We're collecting a group of exiled students, writers and immigrant artisans here in Paris, drilling them for a couple of weeks, and then marching off to invade and conquer Germany. It'll be a few hundred of us taking on the armies of Prussia and Austria. The French government has promised us some muskets. Would you like to sign up?"

Really? I mean, really?

It's one thing to organize an uprising inside your country, where you are close to the ground and have better knowledge of the conditions, and have developed local cells and support networks. But an army of out-of-touch exiles is naive in the extreme.

Which is why most of such invasions go wrong. The ones that go right, do so because of support from within the country they're invading. So they are best looked at through the lens of revolutionary politics rather than military operations. The invading band serves as a core or cadre around which new volunteers can sign up in large numbers, that's its organizational function. It also serves the ideological function of inspiring action in others, on the theory that "courage is contageous." This is a phrase from Carlo Pisacane, 19th century theorist of "propaganda of the deed." Napoleon's return from Elba is a good example of how the process works from before Pisacane. Pisacane directly inspired the Redshirts in Sicily and indirectly Lenin's reorganization of the Bolsheviks. Pisacane himself failed miserably.

 

[Narwhal]

Cuban Revolution is 80 or so Cuban exiles and a non-Cuban doctor landing in a decrepit boat and expecting local population to rise up, which it did.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

To be fair, it worked out for the Bourbons, it just took nigh on three decades, an international coalition consisting of most of Europe's powers and the greatest conflict in Europe until WW1.

There might be a problem of perception here though - we might look at it from the perspective of 'bah crazy exiles up to no good, didn't they know they had no chance' - and certainly from 1900 onwards one might make that case. However, for people at the time, they might be looking at the various French Revolutions, the Spanish guerilla warfare during the Napoleonic conflict, heck even the various wars for independence in the Americas, as examples of what 'the people' can do. Now I know none of these strictly fit your model, although one might consider foreign occupation of major domestic centres as an exile of sorts, but they might have been sufficient for contemporaries to rally to a banner of rebellion. Come to think of it, I wonder if the various campaigns of SImon Bolivar might be what you're looking for - you've got exile, returning successfully, new states, talk about ticking boxes...

Maybe Bolivar is an example to point to. Although he is more an example of army driven into exile & returning, rather than an army raised entirely among exiles.

What I find fascinating is that armies of exiles seem like just an application of the "We few, we happy few" doctrine in the extreme. Their obsession with "secret societies", their confidence that a small alien group coming from outside can do "it" quickly, without local support, speaks to something I know not what. They seemed to disdain careful preparation on the ground, propaganda and mass mobilization as unnecessary for success, and perhaps even encumbrances. What guerrilla manual were they reading?

The thing is they had plenty of examples of failure, e.g. the carbonari failed time and time again. They simply chose not to learn from those examples. What I am curious is what were the positive examples they could point to, what inspired them to believe it would work?

 

[Barsoom]

Maybe Bolivar is an example to point to. Although he is more an example of army driven into exile & returning, rather than an army raised entirely among exiles.

What I find fascinating is that armies of exiles seem like just an application of the "We few, we happy few" doctrine in the extreme. Their obsession with "secret societies", their confidence that a small alien group coming from outside can do "it" quickly, without local support, speaks to something I know not what. They seemed to disdain careful preparation on the ground, propaganda and mass mobilization as unnecessary for success, and perhaps even encumbrances. What guerrilla manual were they reading?

The thing is they had plenty of examples of failure, e.g. the carbonari failed time and time again. They simply chose not to learn from those examples. What I am curious is what were the positive examples they could point to, what inspired them to believe it would work?

All of South America, excepting only Brazil. An entire continent at one stroke is a pretty inspiring example.

The crux of course is that the exile armies assumed they would have local support. They did not always prepare the ground, focusing instead on getting themselves organized, but then they often thought the population was already on their side and did not need preparation, other than by the example they themselves would set. Yes, that's naive but don't forget much of this took place before the age of mass organization. Mass political parties only came into being in the last two or three decades of the 19th century. Where could they have gained such experience?

 

[Yakman]

i was going to suggest the Glorious Revolution, but that was Dutch cut throats.

 

[Henry IX]

The thing is they had plenty of examples of failure, e.g. the carbonari failed time and time again. They simply chose not to learn from those examples. What I am curious is what were the positive examples they could point to, what inspired them to believe it would work?

As far as I can tell it was based of self-deceptive thinking. "Any right-mined individual would want the thing I want. I am a nationalist and therefore believe that my nation is populated by right-thinking individuals. There has not been a revolution BUT the right-thinking people of my nation must want one (because I do), therefore they simply need the spark to begin. We band of brothers will return as the nucleus of the revolutionary army that will surely rise up with us..."

Otherwise the potential revolutionary must believe that the people are cowardly/lazy/apathetic/idiots or the revolution is not wanted by the people.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

As far as I can tell it was based of self-deceptive thinking. "Any right-mined individual would want the thing I want. I am a nationalist and therefore believe that my nation is populated by right-thinking individuals. There has not been a revolution BUT the right-thinking people of my nation must want one (because I do), therefore they simply need the spark to begin. We band of brothers will return as the nucleus of the revolutionary army that will surely rise up with us..."

Otherwise the potential revolutionary must believe that the people are cowardly/lazy/apathetic/idiots or the revolution is not wanted by the people.

I'm actually wondering if the latter is not the case.

The problem with these nationalists is that they are almost all political revolutionaries, not social revolutionaries. Their "revolution" is not for the benefit of the lower classes. So when they speak of "The People", I don't get the impression they actually have the masses in mind, but only people of the same class as themselves. In which case secret societies and small bands engaged in conspiratorial actions may be all that is needed. If you target the critical nodes, e.g. replace the town council with right-thinking folks, that is enough. The rest of the people will follow. Consequently propaganda and mass organization are an unnecessary waste of time. People follow anything that moves. And peasants are just peasants.

At least that's what it seems.

 

[Gil galad]

i was going to suggest the Glorious Revolution, but that was Dutch cut throats.

Actually it would be more like the Monmouth rebellion. William made sure he had a well organized fleet, army and solid financial backing instead of relying on the fanciful promises of English noblemen.

 

[Conanteacher]

Strange that "Arab Spring" cases have not been mentioned yet.
Some groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria had people from all around the world.

Muslims from the UK, Afghan veterans, Algerian cutthroats, French agents, Saudi responsibles, Emirati organizers, Chechen volunteers, Libyan mechanics, Bosnian revengers, Palestinian revolutionaries, Uzbek radicals, Berber mercenaries, Syrian tribal leaders, Iraqi terrorists, Albanian prison escapees, Egyptian adventurers, Iranian Scientists, Belgian teenagers, Tunisian plunderers, Somali traders, SE Asian exiles.... all posing as genuine local revolutionaries.
Feel free to mix country of origin / field of expertise.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Strange that "Arab Spring" cases have not been mentioned yet.
Some groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria had people from all around the world.

Muslims from the UK, Afghan veterans, Algerian cutthroats, French agents, Saudi responsibles, Emirati organizers, Chechen volunteers, Libyan mechanics, Bosnian revengers, Palestinian revolutionaries, Uzbek radicals, Berber mercenaries, Syrian tribal leaders, Iraqi terrorists, Albanian prison escapees, Egyptian adventurers, Iranian Scientists, Belgian teenagers, Tunisian plunderers, Somali traders, SE Asian exiles.... all posing as genuine local revolutionaries.
Feel free to mix country of origin / field of expertise.

True. But they are part of a larger local army, so don't really fit the OP's parameters.

I could see an argument for some international terrorist groups being an "army of exiles", but they haven't exactly been successful.

At any rate, the OP was set mainly with pre-20th C. in mind. If 20th C. is included, I would grant the Cuban case and have to think about some others.