The Battle of Aughrim on the original 12 July 1691

CDfm · 19-10-2011 7:32pm

So Aughrim really was the Battle for the South & West of the Country.

The real issue in the what happened next is the Treaty of Limerick. Anything after Aughrim was a real any climax.

So what happened with the Treaty of Limerick.

I think it is best to look at it in terms of the Hegelian Triad

http://web.archive.org/web/20080128195659/http:/www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm

So what were the terms of the Treaty and who survived.

lebowski11 · 20-10-2011 10:27pm

I'm doing some research on the history and memory of the battle of Aughrim at the moment.

The switch in calenders certainly played a huge part in the Boyne taking on more significance than Aughrim as the most famous (if not most militarily decisive) battle of the Jacobite War.

But on the whole I think the ultimate reason for the Boyne superceding Aughrim in importance was due to the sheer amount of luminaries present at the Boyne. The significance of having 2 very well kinown monarchs (James II and William III) fighting over the English crown on Irish soil should not be underestimated. Neither were present at Aughrim. The Boyne was by Irish standards a truly significant event.

Plus the Williamite victory at the Boyne was viewed as the decisive encounter on the continent.

And finally, an important point to note is that for various reasons the Protestants viewed the Catholic Irish performance at the Boyne as quite cowardly. At Aughrim the Jacobites could, and perhaps should have won the battle. The Irish were engaged frequently at Aughrim and did put up a much better showing. With this in mind it becomes clearer to see why the Orange Order choose the Boyne as the seminal moment in their history. The Irish looked more cowardly than they did at Aughrim.

Its impossible to gauge how many casualties there were at Aughrim, but this is generally the case for most pre-modern era battles. The standard estimate seems to be about 7,000 dead. Some think the figure is lower, but Aughrim still ranks as the bloodiest day in Irish history.

I've slipped it in a few times when I've posted here but there is probably no better thread than this to say it again....

The protection given for battlesites in Ireland is completely inadequate. Aughrim is the perfect case in point. Huge parts of the Jacobite line have been built on after the Galway Council freely gave planning permission during the boom. The Galway to Dublin motorway cuts right through the infamous Luttrel's Pass on the battlefield, this happened in spite of residents voicing their concern over such a move. The pass is where Jacobite cavalry commander Henry Luttrel took his men from the field exposing the Irish infantry to Williamite cavalry. This was after St. Ruth was hit by the fluke cannonball and it really put the nail in Jacobite coffin. Luttrel was later found to have recieved a pension from William of Orange, he was a traitor. Now we have the motorway intersecting the site of this important of event in Irish history, its a disgrace. Everyone who posts here is evidently interested in Irish history. We should all voice our concerns when our heritage sites are threatened like this again.

KeithAFC · 21-10-2011 11:11pm

It was a huge battle in the Williamite war and was key to the victory for William Of Orange and his loyal soldiers. I think it should be put alongside the Battle of the Boyne for significance.

CDfm · 21-10-2011 11:50pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

It was a huge battle in the Williamite war and was key to the victory for William Of Orange and his loyal soldiers. I think it should be put alongside the Battle of the Boyne for significance.

For some reason I look at the Boyne at being an NI thing and its probably because I am from the deep south.

Though cos William and James were there personally gives it a certain cache.

I am very interested in the land distrubution afterwards and the role of parliment and of course the rehabilitation of Cromwells mob.

There was only so much land to go around and so many claimants for it.

lebowski11 · 22-10-2011 1:03am

CDfm wrote: »

For some reason I look at the Boyne at being an NI thing and its probably because I am from the deep south.

Though cos William and James were there personally gives it a certain cache.

I am very interested in the land distrubution afterwards and the role of parliment and of course the rehabilitation of Cromwells mob.

There was only so much land to go around and so many claimants for it.

I know that English finances were in pretty bad shape throughout the 1690's (the war on the continent continued for a further 6 years after the Treaty of Limerick). The value of the forfeited catholic Irish land did not even come close to covering the cost of the war in Ireland. Who exactly ended up with the land I can't answer. But the culture of absentee landlords that prevailed throughout the 18th century probably indicates that they were mostly Englishmen, I'm open to correction here though and I'm sure that plenty of Irish born protestants ended up with significant holdings post treaty.

The Irish parliament after the war was, as you can imagine, very much a protestant parliament. There was a law in place that had originated in England at the first sitting of the new Irish parliament in 1692 that forbade MP's that had not sworn an oath against transubstantion from taking a seat. But the Irish parliament had limited powers, the real power over Ireland still stemmed from Westminster. Hence the political strife that coloured relations between the Irish protestant patriots and the English parliament until the passing of the Act of Union in 1800.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the rehabilitation of Cromwell's mob?

CDfm · 22-10-2011 8:22am

lebowski11 wrote: »

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the rehabilitation of Cromwell's mob?

The settlers returning to Galway.

lebowski11 · 22-10-2011 11:08am

CDfm wrote: »

The settlers returning to Galway.

I had a look in John Child's 'The Williamite Wars in Ireland' but found no reference to what happened with the sttlers after the surrender of Galway. I book I don't have, J.G. Simms 'The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland 1690-1703' would probably be the best place to find out about this. At a guess I'd imagine that those who had left the west simply came back across the Shannon and continued as normal. By the time the last of the Penal laws were passed they were probably more secure than they had ever been.

CDfm · 22-10-2011 11:17am

I think covering the battle itself is only half the story without discovering what happened to the participants and the land they fought over.

In Cromwells time he sold a lot of people into slavery including what are now known as the redlegs in Barbados.

So , what did the Williamites do on victory.

lebowski11 · 22-10-2011 11:51am

The original Treaty of Limerick was quite leniant. It allowed for freedom of worship and for the remnants of James's army to embark to Brest and continue the war in the srvice of the French.

But 'Limerick' became known as the broken treaty. The real issues occured in the years leading up to the final Penal laws as the original treaty became dismantled. A series of harsh anti-catholic laws were introduced which effectively subjugated the catholic population for the entire 18th century.

I'll have a look when I have some time later and see can I find anything which tells us about the direct nature of some of these laws.

Snickers Man · 22-10-2011 1:52pm

CDfm wrote: »

The Keppels are still around and one Duchess of Cornwall is descended from a Keppel who was a royal mistress.

And another became the first winner of a million pounds on ITV's Who Wants to be a Millionaire. She's now an Egghead.

Snickers Man · 22-10-2011 1:57pm

dubhthach wrote: »

At Aughrim the Jacobites were under control of French general St. Ruth, whereas the Williamites were under control of the Dutch general Ginkell. The Jacobites actually had an upper hand until St. Ruth was killed by a canonball. This led to panic reaction on Jacobite side and a rout.

The version that I learned in Rang a Sé (fadó fadó) was that St Ruth was jealous of Sarsfield and wouldn't tell him the plan. Also kept him out of the way with the reserves and so when he, St Ruth, was killed there was no backup plan which is why the "Irish" got massacred.

Jesus. · 15-03-2015 10:16pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The Battle of the Boyne ( BoB ) had 25,000 on James side with 1,500 causalties. 36,000 on Williams with 750 causalities. I think it might be a mistake to judge one battle more important than the other. And I think the casualty count does not tell us much about the significance of a battle.

I was just reading through a Jacobite narrative on the war and he says about casualties at the Boyne "there were slain of the loyalists (Jacobites) about five hundred men" and the Williamites "about a thousand private men".

These seem exaggerated but its always important to get both side's side of the story in order to settle at a best guesstimate.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E703001-001.html

Jesus. · 15-03-2015 10:41pm

CDfm wrote: »

Thats really generous, there must have been lots of Irish Battles I wonder what the top 10 are ?

basillarkin wrote: »

Clontarf 1014, Dublin 1171, Dysert O’Dea 1318, Knockdoe 1504, Farsetmore 1567, Clontibert 1595, Yellow Ford 1598, Moyry Pass 1600, Kinsale 1601, Benburb 1646, Rathmines 1649, The Boyne 1690, Aughrim 1691, Arklow 1798,

I read McCoy not that long ago and when I flipped open to look at the contents I was surprised by some of the battles he chose. They're certainly not the top 10, not in my opinion anyway. Maybe he had some other criteria for picking them I don't know.

One thing he says regarding Aughrim is that Henry Luttrell was largely responsible for the defeat by drawing his cavalry off the field at a critical point and implies that he may have made a deal with William for the protection of his estates. He's the Catholic equivalent of Robert Lundy. He was murdered not long after the war by a vengeful Jacobite.

(Not bothered Googling to confirm stuff. Just going from memory so what I just wrote may well all be bollocks)

Jesus. · 15-03-2015 10:52pm

Almost forgot. Another interesting thing I find is that despite Aughrim being a nothing village in the middle of nowhere with zero strategic importance, there was another battle there nearly 90 years before that. Donal Cam O'Sullivan Bere fought an engagement here in 1603 on his infamous march to the north.

pedroeibar1 · 16-03-2015 12:46am

Jesus. wrote: »

I read McCoy not that long ago and when I flipped open to look at the contents I was surprised by some of the battles he chose. They're certainly not the top 10, not in my opinion anyway. Maybe he had some other criteria for picking them I don't know.

One thing he says regarding Aughrim is that Henry Luttrell was largely responsible for the defeat by drawing his cavalry off the field at a critical point and implies that he may have made a deal with William for the protection of his estates. He's the Catholic equivalent of Robert Lundy. He was murdered not long after the war by a vengeful Jacobite.

(Not bothered Googling to confirm stuff. Just going from memory so what I just wrote may well all be bollocks)

Then why bother to reopen a thread that is 4 years old?
I have no recollection of H-McC asserting that Luttrell had ‘done a deal’ to save his estates. Where does that come from?
A critical item in the analysis of that battle is the time that St. Ruth was killed, and there are contradictory reports of it.. Did his decapitation happen before or after Luttrell turned away? The Jacobite cavalry did not cover itself in glory, but Sheldon had proven himself at the Boyne, and Luttrell was no fool, so perhaps it was best to leave the field? (Athough not if one was in the infantry!) Also, Sarsfield’s role is open to considerable question – he was there, and also at the Boyne but seems not to have done much……
Anyway, CDfm is long gone, more’s the pity.

Jesus. · 16-03-2015 1:21am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Then why bother to reopen a thread that is 4 years old?

I'm not in the business of robotically regurgitating facts from a search engine Pedro. What I say on here is like someone having a real life conversation and not being afraid to be wrong on the specifics. If the latter is a prerequisite for talking on here then I'd rather count the wrinkles on my dog's balls.

The 2nd and 3rd posts I've made here are simply from recollection (some vague, some not so) of books I've read previously.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I have no recollection of H-McC asserting that Luttrell had ‘done a deal’ to save his estates. Where does that come from?

What do you mean where does it come from? I've just told you. McCoy's chapter on Aughrim.

As I recall he made particular reference to Lutrell and why he and the Cavalry commanders would leave the field the way they did when the battle was still very much in the balance. St Ruth was killed and the Williamites were attempting to turn the Jacobite's left (near a Church) and seeing as the rest of the line was still holding, McCoy couldn't understand why the cavalry didn't charge (they were posted on the left) and check this advance, hence holding the whole line. After the Williamites turned the left, the whole army was quickly rolled up.

This is where he hypothesizes why the Gentlemen of the Cavalry left the field when they did, leaving the common soldiers of the infrantry with no lands or estates to lose, to their fate. Read the book, its in it.

Do come back with your research to correct any errors from my memory. Better your time than mine.

(Oh and please leave your High Horse hitched outside next time upon your return, Pedro my boy

)

Qualitymark · 16-03-2015 9:44am

What's seldom recognised in the consideration of the Boyne, Aughrim, etc is that Louis XIV, the Sun King, was central.

Louis XIV was making himself into a world-dominating emperor.

He had invaded the Netherlands.

A consolidation of his enemies, backed by the Pope, and including William of Orange, a Dutch prince who was the son-in-law of James II, opposed Louis XIV.

(Background on this family: James II, universally known as Séamas a' Caca in Ireland after he ran away, abandoning his troops, at the Battle of the Boyne, had been deposed in 1688 in what the English call the "Glorious Revolution", an ultra-Protestant coup that brought the same William of Orange into England. They didn't like James's "religious tolerance" (Catholics weren't persecuted, and the Parliament of Ireland was promised later autonomy), or his close ties with the dangerously-expanding France of Louis XIV. And when James II, who'd converted to Catholicism, had a son, a Catholic heir to the English throne and its adjuncts in Ireland and Scotland, they got distinctly hinky. Poor old James II didn't have a lot of luck generally; his father was topped by an earlier group of Protestant revolutionaries; he inherited the throne after his brother (James VI of Scotland and I of England) died of apoplexy pleading fruitlessly for his friend Nell Gwynn to be minded. Incidentally, James II's idea of tolerance was much the same as that of his Protestant opponents; when seven Protestant bishops objected to Catholics being tolerated, they were thrown in the slammer. When James II's heir was born, William of Orange invaded England; James II, not the sharpest tool in the box, refused the offer of a French invasion force. After William of Orange won the field in England, James escaped to France, and William of Orange and his wife (James II's daughter), Mary II of England, were hired as joint king & queen of England, Scotland and Ireland.)

The alliance fighting the scary Louis XIV saw themselves as the defenders of liberty, but of course like so many defenders of liberty then then proceeded to trample on the liberties of those who thought differently.

pedroeibar1 · 16-03-2015 11:25am

I will ignore your supercilious comments as childishness and simply point out that you have changed your claim in your original post

Jesus. wrote: »

.......One thing he says regarding Aughrim is that Henry Luttrell was largely responsible for the defeat by drawing his cavalry off the field at a critical point and implies that he may have made a deal with William for the protection of his estates.

Hayes-McCoy does not imply that anywhere.

“The Jacobite writers attribute the moral breakdown to the death of the commander; they say that St. Ruth died and the left wing cavalry rode off. We are told that Luttrell was at the pass ‘with advanced trooped’ but that he withdrew from the field after a slight resistance to Mackay and that Sheldon followed him…………..the Irish infantry broke because their cavalry did not assist them” G.A. Hayes-McCoy Irish Battles (1980 edition)-Page 266 -267 -

Elsewhere he repeatedly states that Ginkel held the advantage throughout the day, he had superior numbers of horsemen and used them effectively at the Irish’s weakest point. H-McC does say that the mounted man had in the past deserted infantry (and specifically mentions Crecy) and had more to lose by intransigence and more to gain by compromise. Nothing whatsoever about your original claim the Luttrell had ‘done a deal”.

Goodbye, I've better things to be doing than correcting your fickle notions.

Jesus. · 16-03-2015 12:41pm

"more to lose by intransigence and more to gain by compromise" That's one way of putting it! I'm sure McCoy didn't use those words! :pac::pac::pac:

Come back and quote the entire piece in which McCoy theorises why the cavalry rode off.

No deal done? Great! Like I said, I was going to leave the research of the specifics to some lemming so I didn't have to go and get the book again. And while you're at it, come back with a reliable account as to who murdered him subsequently and why. Cheers Pedro

(BTW, you always say someone is being nasty toward you when its you who always instigates it! Don't start with an attitude and then cry when the serve is returned. Your manner is disrespectful to almost everyone one here, the most recent being the Bertie Ahern thread. Grow up lad.)

The Battle of Aughrim on the original 12 July 1691

Comments