Another question on cuirassiers in Ireland 1690

[quindia]

Hmmm... missed the mention of the troops being so large. On page 48 of the Osprey book there is a chart showing the Lifeguard at only 161 men on October 15, 1689... I do see in the text that there were two troops around 200 each so, yes I'd round that up to 12 models.

Again, the only thing I ever have access to are secondary sources and I was more curious about Dr Murtagh's reason for inclusion of the armored horse...

I sent him a note and I'll post anything I find out if I get a response!

[Rebel]

Just a quickie as Pc has died and I'm doing this from work. Lifeguard troops were effectively double strength and rated as regiments. )In Ireland the 1st was under Harry Jermyn, Viscount Dover and the 2nd under James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick. When Dover quit Ireland, and as far as I'm aware, Berwick took over tactical command as both and they would thuis have operated as a normal size regiment.

Ref placing too much emphasis on what the French provided well, that is actually the point. We know what they provided and as 99% of the capacity for producing military kit in Ireland was not in Jacobite hands it was up to Louis XIV to provide for his cousin*. This gives us an exceptionally clear picture of what sort of kit the Jacobite army had. There should be a summary of same in my Aughrim book.

* As an example, the Mountcashel Brigade originally fought in gris-mesle as they had left their red coats in Ireland (either in storage or on the field of Newtownbutler) and Louis refused to go to the expense of having coats dyed especially for them......

[turrabear]

in appendix c of michael mcnallys exellent book on aughrim it show's to strengh's for the 2 troops of life guards the first is for immediately after the battle of aughrim and the second is for 30th july 1691.
ths 1st troop of life guards had 30 officers and 184 other ranks after the battle of aughrim and the same returns on the 30th july.
the 2nd troop life guards had 26 officers after aughrim and 127 other rank's ,but on july 30th they had 27 officers and 127 other rank's.
this might be nothing but in all the book's i've read on the boyne and aughrim there is only ever a mention of 2 troops of horse guards in the orders of battle . never a troop of horse grenadiers . could the horse grenadier be attached to the 2 troops of life guards.

[Churchill]

Ray.

[quindia]

I had a response for Dr Murtagh this morning when I woke up...

It was not uncommon for body armour to be worn at the time, but I concede that it may have been unusual in the Irish Jacobite army and , as you say, there is no mention of it coming from France. However, before the war there were three excellent regiments of cavalry in the Irish army. Possibly they may have worn cuirasses. However, we dressed King James's Life Guard in cuirasses because they are specifically mentioned as having worn them at Aughrim, and therefore presumably also at the Boyne. The Aughrim reference is in the dispatch of the duke of Wurtemburg - one of the Williamite generals - who says (17 July 1691): 'The regiment of Ruvigny, composed entirely of French protestants, charged with sword in hand into the enemy squadrons and engaged King James's Guard who defended themselves very bravely and lost 72 dead and wounded, and would have lost more had they not worn cuirasses.' (K Danaher and JG Simms, The Danish force in Ireland 1690-1691 [IMC, 1962], p. 123). We have relatively little information on the Life Guard - no list of officers, for example - but this item of information seems authentic enough. After all, Wurtemburg was there. Armour was worn to some extent at the time: Sergeant Custume and the brave men who accompanied him on the bridge of Athlone are mentioned as wearing some armour, and the duke of Schomberg was observed NOT to have worn his at the Boyne.

So there we go... what I have been after with this thread was a source. As an artist, I don't include details without some reason for them and doubted they were made up from whole cloth because they looked cool. Maybe they didn't have armor at the Boyne but were supplied later? There's nothing to support that either - as Mike mentioned there should be records of French equipment. No idea, but anyone who wants to included cuirassers for the Lifeguard has something to point to and at least make the case they are mentioned in a primary source (Wurtemburg's dispatch). I now feel it more likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle as Flick said...

[Captain of Dragoons]

So is Warfare making Jacobite Life Guards in cuirasses

cheers
Edward

[Rebel]

Am checking Walton, Nathan Brooks etc for references but as pc at home is dead won't be able to post until next week.

Clarence, would still advise caution.
The Franco Irish Correspondence is reproduced in French, exactly as spelt (so numerous spelling versions of Tyrconnel, Berwick, Sarsfield etc) whilst Danaher & Simms' "Danish Force" is a translated synopsis of the Danish correspondence which was originally in either French and German and the obvious question is how good was either gentleman's command of either language ? Were they fluent speakers or (in the pre google age) sit there with a dictionary ? The only way to tell exactly would be to study the originals which are in Copenhagen or the microfilm copies D&S used, which I believe, are still in Dublin.

Example "Châpeau de Fer" - Iron Hat, Iron Cap, Iron Helmet, Kettle Helmet, take your choice...

It is dangerous ground ain the article on the Jacobite regiments that Diarmuid and Harman Murtagh produced in Irish Sword, they list a regiment of foot for the latter stages of the war as "B. FitzGerald". It is the only reference in any work that I've seen that cites this unit. But then when one considers that in period French script a capital "B" and a capital "E" are virtually indistinguishable it validates the regiment of "Edmund/Edward Fitzgerald" that also appears separately in the list...

[quindia]

Thanks, Mike. I certainly can't speak to the credentials - I was was more curious where the information came from. As I mentioned I have amassed a veritable tower of books on the campaign and had not seen this mentioned elsewhere. I know new information comes to light from time to time.

I really appreciate the wonders of the internet that allows this kind of forum. I'll probably never consider myself more than a hobbiest when it comes to serious historical research, but I am grateful for the efforts of people like Mike and Dan and their willingness to share for the sake of a bunch of people painting toy soldiers (even if we don't always listen to them).

[barr7430]

I concur 100% with Clarence. We have got to get these interesting but sometimes tortuous debates into perspective. The only people who know de facto are the people who were there. They are all dead. None I suspect had enough spare time to ensure that 300+ years later a bunch of blokes with too much time on their hands would not have to suffer sleepless nights worrying about whether some of them wore breastplates, brass buttons or socks. Having qualifications, having read or researched information, having written and published something, having letters after your name is not a guarantee that you are right only that your opinion is more likely to be reasoned and accurate. ie it shortens the odds but does not mean you will be 100% on the money. We are daily seeing evidence of history being challenged and re told. Why should any source be trusted 100%? Everyone has an agenda to peddle even if it is as innocent as self agrandisment.

I have just arrived back in the UK after a 2 week break from news to find out:

Liverpool Supporters are NOT callous, thieving, immoral football hooligans but victims of a Police cover up. For the past 25 years ALL the official evidence points to that fine city being the biggest den of iniquity north of Jo'burg. So, The Police lied, Thatcher covered up, MPs lied, Emergency services lied, News papers colluded and lied...... Did Jacobite Lifeguards wear cuirasses?... ready to bet on your children's lives?

Evil Shakesperean villian, hunchback, child murdering, plotting, lying villian Richard Plantagenet's (III) body has been uncovered under a car park in Leicester. Hmmm.... now, as this amazing find is dripped out to the masses is the evil Richard being recalibrated in our consciousness by revisionist historians OR is another truth emerging?... maybe NOT a child murderer(no smoking gun, no direct link), now known as a just Nobleman who introduced legal representation for the poor and the system of 'bail' now so beloved of UK and US Courts, a brave and fearless warrior who went down fighting in the thick of battle... and, not even a hunchback but rather someone who suffered from a mediacl condition making his shoulders different heights..... how many authoratative books have been written on R3 up to this point (starting in the 1550s?). So, who is right... 500 historians or a dead body with an arrowhead in its spine and a medical condition?... ready to bet on those Danes and their cuirasses yet?.. get the money out boys!....

Friends, I will have no sleepless nights over any of this... My Lifeguards will have cuirasses, my Danish Horse will have cuirasses, I'll paint my sashes whatever colour looks nice as after all, I play with wee soldiers and potter about on the internet. When 2000 models are on the table no one gets close enough to see the button colours. I also suspect a man with tin buttons fought no worse than a man with brass buttons (but, I could be wrong as I wasn;t there to see it happen)

I am very grateful for the contributions of everyone on this forum and it have provided endless diversion and amusement for dozens of us, but I never forget..... none of us were there so we don't know too much!

[wellington]

Bravo

When we can get the history of 20 years ago wrong what hope for 200 years?

Kevin

[Rebel]

Interesting thoughts Barry. That's why one of the sources I mentioned above is Nathan Brooks who wrote an account of the 1685 Hounslow Review that he attended and as he dwells more on the guard units he might just mention body armour. Obvously at Aughrim, we know the de Tessé wore armour as his breastplate stopped two pistol balls before he was carried off the field, but he was a general and so outside of the norm.

Can only speak personally but if I have an agenda it's to get it as accurate as possible after all, people give out hard earned cash for any of the works I have in print and so I'm obliged to do my best to present facts or substantiable assertions rather than mere opinions or guesses.

Best example is a book on the Byerly Turk which I have heard by some acquaintances as being firmly based in historical fact and a justification for work that they themselves have done. When you read the book you'll note that they also interestingly enough get thanks for being the advisors on the Williamite War: the book has said Colonel Byerley performing all manner of battlefield heroics at the Boyne when historical record has him crapping through the eye of a needle during the battle, with his place being taken by the (soon to be famous) Major Cornelius Wood.

[obriendavid]

So is Warfare making Jacobite Life Guards in cuirasses
cheers
Edward

They are not making specific Guards figures in cuirass but the figures in floppy hats and cuirass are just so cool that I want to paint them up as Guards.

To add further to the discussion on French supplied uniforms, a number of people seem to have access to paper work recording how many uniforms and weapons the French sent to Ireland which is all well and good but the main problem is, were they then delivered to Ireland and then distributed to the troops at the front? From the little I have read of the period the Jacobites seemed to have massive problems supplying food and powder to the troops without worrying if they were all in the correct uniforms with matching facings.
Cheers
Dave

[Rebel]

David,

the kit was definitely landed and the only refs I can recall to stuff not getting "to the front" relative term though that may be was at Cork when de Boisseleau re-equipped his regiment as the crates themselves were landed.....

Mike.

[turrabear]

David,

the kit was definitely landed and the only refs I can recall to stuff not getting "to the front" relative term though that may be was at Cork when de Boisseleau re-equipped his regiment as the crates themselves were landed.....

Mike.

would that de boisselau would have had a french grey/white uniform.

[barr7430]

Mike, I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me, disagreeing or neither
I am not having a pop and I realise that historians all strive for the Holy Grail of definitive truth and proof positive but the realities stand.... Back to Hillsborough... 60 million+ people saw it on TV but for the last quarter century the truth is what we've been fed by the 'establishment' whatever we thought we saw! All I am saying is, with there is always some element of doubt I believe that is the one fact that cannot be argued.

Maybe only officers wore cuirasses, maybe they were distributed randomly throughout the Troops, maybe it was the choice of the troop commander, maybe some got left behind, maybe nobody wore them.... that is the point.

I probably don't see it is the same terms as perhaps you are coming from. My view is that definitive answers to many questions rarely exist. That's what makes life interesting and these debates so much fun

You and other writer's make a valuable contribution and as I have said before on this site your book on Aughrim in particular is an excellent, readable and engaging piece of work but you must have made some assumptions in there, you must have fleshed out some descriptions... we would expect it, that's what writing is. If you had simply presented a list of facts it would have been an arid work indeed. Keep it up, we love it even though sometimes we cannot wholly cheer on every aspect as completely the last word. You already have more than a few pennies of my money