bonnet wearing infantery in ireland?? 1690s

[Rebel]

Blücher,

would base my comments on a) that they are in "highland kit" whilst the regiment was raised in Ireland and not Scotland and b) that - with the dispersal of companies as detailed in the Franco-Irish correspondence - we have a pretty good analysis of the detachments which marched to Derry.

Mike.

[Rebel]

And of course that the unit is described in the Diary of John Stevens and if they were wearing anything out of the ordinary, give the detail in the rest of his work, he would have noted it.

[Clibinarium]

I'd concur with Rebel. I've always understood the "redshanks" of Antrim's regiment to be Catholic recruits from the Earl's locality in Antrim, being in many cases descended from the original generations of redshanks, the Scottish Highland mercenaries hired in the 15th and 16th Centuries by Irish lords. These men frequently settled in the east of Ulster (prior to the Plantation), so that their later generations were still called "redshanks", but were born and lived in Ulster, and presumably assimilated to the extent at least that they did not maintain Highland dress.
The caveat being that this is better characterised as an impression I've formed rather than a specific theory I've read somewhere.

But as already said the absence of any noting of difference in Steven's diary is probably the best indicator. "Clothed in white lined red" suggests conventional dress of justacorps style coat, the other regiments are noted in the same format.
Doesn't preclude the wearing of bonnets, but you'd imagine he'd have mentioned them as they'd have been something of an exception

[Rebel]

Thanks Clibinarium,

also redshanks - once believed by many to refer to the "fact" that Antrim's regiment went barelegged is actually now accepted to be a derogatory comment based upon the clan split between the MacDonnell's in Ulster and the Mc/MacDonald's in Scotland....

[cantbeatdavy]

ive been keeping an eye from work on this question.thanks for all the feed back.
cheers all
john

[Blucher]

'Rebel' and 'Clibinarium'...

...thanks for your feedback.....your comments/observations are really appreciated. It just goes to show how 'varied in info' our hobby can sometimes be....

To have a 'picture' - that could well be inaccurate - or lacking in full explaination, or a combo of both - in a reference book (however good this reference book may seem/be) ... goes to show how 'open to ones interpretation', things can be.

It does go towards the concept of ....I wasn't actually there, so I can not diffinatively say one way or another - and this approach can sometimes be considered when you are wanting to do something within the hobby.

However I fall into the side of being a little 'annally accurate' when I do most things regarding units/dress etc....and as such, the argument towards 'no bonnets' is tipping the balance for me!!!

Thanks for your enlightenment.


Adrian

[cantbeatdavy]

ok , so if they are not designed for the wars in ireland,where can they be fielded?still a bit of a novice to this era...
cheers
john

[Rebel]

Well, basically Scotland....

Having said that (and as I wrote at length in another thread) you could combine them with a Jacobite Irish force if you work from James II's own plans for 1689 - He wanted to mask Derry and then move the better elements of the army to Scotland to link up with his partisans such as Dundee, invading England from the north, something which - to my mind - had the potential (if logistically viable) to become a war-winning (or at least war-prolonging) strategy: English resources would almost certainly have been stretched to breaking point.

As it was the plan foundered on the rocks of Tyrconnel's demands for Irish autonomy/own political agenda/refusal to move the army and the simple fact that France couldn't guarantee being able to command the passage long enough to transport the troops. In the final analysis the only force that crossed was the detachment of Nicholas Purcell's dragoons* that were sent as an advance guard under the command of Alexander Cannan and who, themselves fought at Killiekrankie, Dunkeld etc.....

* Those who stayed in Ireland were brought up to strength and reformed as a regiment of horse.

- Mike.

[cantbeatdavy]

hi Mike

ok ,that sounds good.its a pity not to paint them up as they are nice wee figs.
cheers
john
oh BTW are we talking uniformed foot soldiers?the ones i have are uniformed with bonnets.
if uniformed would they be red coats or grey or civilian??

[Rebel]

do you have a pic ?

[cantbeatdavy]

hi mike
sadly not.there doesnt appear to be any on the venexia or vexilia sites.basically from top to bottom.
bonnet.long coat to mid thigh with wide cuffs. breeches.socks and shoes.from the neck down the same as the other figs in the range.armed with musket.no bandolier.cross belts and belt.all the figs have the same uniform but the pose is different.some have a cloak draped over their backs.
hope thats helpfull.
cheers

[Rebel]

No problem, it's a good description and helps me to envisage them.

Crossbelts seem odd as this would imply flintlocks and would (given tne nationality) potentially take them out of 1689. For wargamng purposes would suggest that you've got two main options a) paint them up as governmental militia so red or grey coats etc etc or b) as a "retinue" for one of the clan heads. The problem is that (as we know from the '45) we're not talking about large bodies of men here.

In any event given that the Scottish Expedition is hypothetical anyway, you can give yourself a decent bit of leeway - Non uniform coats could be used to imply a converged unit (as an example).

Just goes to show that not all historians are rabid purists.....

- Mike

[cantbeatdavy]

CHEERS..i will go for the militia option.this makes them a little more usable.if i hide them at the back the PURISTS wont see them...hopefully.
thanks all
john