By the by, casualty figures for the War of Independence here.
and casualties for Dublin in the Appendix of this article.
Today in Irish History, The Burning of the Custom House, May 25, 1921 | The Irish Story, Irish History Online
"If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson
I often think that they must have hated each other before, the war just brought it out.
In this connection the tribal theory - that you have those who desire a pure 'gaelic' Ireland, those who believe in tolerance between those of different descents, and Unionists - is compelling, for those are still the main divisions in Irish politics.
I feel the Civil War was really about who what the identity of the new country was going to be - the casualties certainly do not seem to warrant a party division which has lasted nearly 100 years.
Article had since been updated as of November 2014
Casualties of the Irish Civil War in Dublin | The Irish Story
218 killed and 695 wounded in the city and its environs from January 1922 to May 1923 due to political violence.
A detailed breakdown is in the table below but the dead were; 68 Free State forces, 85 Anti-Treaty IRA and 58 civilians. Along with 4 British Army and 1 RIC killed.
And roughly 3,500 people arrested and interned.
I do have a problem with John Dourney's casualty figures for the 16-23 period. His is an extremely good website but I'm not quite sure why so much faith must be put into the British Army's official casualty lists. For example, John's piece about Mount Street bridge takes the amount of killed directly from the BA's records. The BA (and indeed every army in the history of warfare) have a long history of playing down their own casualties and exaggerating their enemies. Its a natural occurrence but why take only one side's figure as gospel?
Right throughout the Anglo-Irish war, the national press under control of the the Government, minimised crown forces casualties and totally fabricated those of the old IRA (the old IRA of course did the exact opposite).
Why the assumption that the BA's casualty figures are unerringly accurate when history tells us that's rarely been the case?
While you're right about the general tendency of armies to understate their casualties, the likes of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission seem to have been fairly rigorous in trying to document British soldiers' deaths. They would be a useful source against which to cross-check the official claims. Local papers from the time are another valuable source.
The division was mostly based on the "haves" versus the "have-nots".
Both have different objectives, and a different mentality.
The "haves" wanted to keep their influence, power, privileges, status, wealth (however small).
The "have nots" wanted to level the playing field and were motivated by different objectives.
It was control versus ambition.
Authority versus rebellion.
Respectability versus revolt.