Talk:Williamite War in Ireland

Séamas an Cac

Is there a source for the assertion that "because of this desertion James became known in Ireland as 'Séamas an Cac' or 'James the Shit'. "? --Theo (Talk) 19:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put this in here, but its a very well known element of Irish folklore. Two sources I can give you straight away are "1690 Battle of the Boyne" (2003) by Padraig Lenihan and "Ireland and the Jacobite cause - A fatal Attachment" by Eamonn O Ciardha (2002). Jdorney

A very long time after the original question, but I've yet to find a good source for this earlier than the 19th century, with one of the earliest ones being Bunting's printing of a tune called "Seamua a' chaca a chaill Eire", "dirty James who lost Ireland". Lots of modern secondary references of course, none of them (that I've seen) stating exactly which Gaelic poets coined the expression.

Funny thing is that I've also seen a couple of 19th cent. references to a tune known as "Limping James", i.e Seamas Bacach - recorded as a contemporary nickname for James, 9th Earl of Ormonde (d.1546).

This makes me wonder if the title was originally Seamus Bacach and got garbled later on. If James really was that reviled after the Boyne it puts a strange complexion on all those 18th century poems lauding the Stuarts as the potential saviours of Ireland.Svejk74 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sister?

[...] some political figures hatched a conspiracy to invite William of Orange to invade England and to assume the Throne jointly with his wife, James' sister Mary.

Was she not his daughter (as is also previously stated)?

— Doshea3 11:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Largest family casualty in the war?

According to John Lodge, The Peerage of Ireland, ed. Mervyn Archdall (London, 1789), vol. 3, pp. 25-28, eleven of the thirteen sons of Walter Tuite of Tuitestown in Westmeath and his wife, Margaret O'More, daughter of David O'More of Portallen in County Laois were killed in this war. But this seems extraordinarily high for one single immediate family. Was this degree of family loss common in this war or was it unique? Captain Fearnought (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about henry VIII's church?

How come england had a catholic king when in 1550 ish henry VIII created a protestant church and made kings the heads. Was james the head of the protestant church then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.164.85 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was. The main issue beyond his Catholicism was his longing for absolutist reign against (ultimately: without) parliament, read James II's article for more. --Flammingo^Hey 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, in 1550 Mary, Queen of Scots was a Catholic queen, in 1567 the one year old James VI became a protestant king but not exactly head of the Kirk. He later invented the divine right of kings, perhaps in reaction to his upbringing when he was told that kings had to respond to their followers. In 1685 James VII became a Catholic head of the Kirk and continued with his predecessor's policy of killing presbyterians – the covenanters. Thus when he fled, Jacobitism wasn't much liked in large areas of Scotland. In 1685 he also became head of the CofE, which is where you came in. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change

I propose the name of the article be changed to The War of the Two Kings. This would be a neutral name, as oppose to referring to the conflict as being a "Jacobite" or "Williamite" war, and is currently referenced in the article's Introduction.SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be the most common name, which I think is the current title. Jdorney (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this issue, but it seems that the best name would be that which doesn't place blame for the war. I feel referring to it as a "Williamite" war does that, as would calling it a "Jacobite" war. The name I suggest doesn't place blame. Why do you believe the current name is "the most common name" for this event? SMP0328. (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Source? What do historians call it in their published works? . . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a check on google books [1], reveals two books on the subject using "Williamite war" in the title [2] [3] as well as numerous other references. A search for "War of the Two Kings", gives numerous references too, but no titles. [4]. A search for "Jacobite war in Ireland", finds three books with "Jacobite War" in the title [5] [6] [7].

So, while it's often called the "War of the Two Kings" in Ireland, which as the text says, is derived from its Irish language name (Cogadh an Da Ri), it's clear that either Jacobite War or Williamite War are more common in English language usage. Jdorney (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

William's relationship with James

The page is missing clarity on how William was James's son-in-law, and also a grandson of Charles I. This was a family tussle.78.19.201.191 (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

no, it was not - it was a very serious conflict of religion in England 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:6D3C:739E:35BE:9151 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Standards

Amongst the various areas in which this page needs work, a perhaps minor point: the Jacobite 'standard' used to represent James's army is completely anachronistic, dating from 1745 (I think). Hayes-McCoy (1979) in A History of Irish Flags says that James used the Stuart royal standard prominently at Aughrim and the Boyne. Allegiance was a bit more complicated than depicted: worth remembering that even Sgt Custume and his ten men on Athlone bridge were from a 'Scots' regiment (Maxwell's) led by a Scot and recruited in Down and Ulster, and there were a few English Catholics amongst the officers. I've already started on redoing Aughrim, anyone want to collaborate on a rewrite of this topic? @Robinvp11:?? Svejk74 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Svejk74:Yeah I'd be happy to help; just working through my list of obscure 17th century French soldiers :). Have a look at my rewrite of the Franco-Dutch War because I think there's a similar issue here ie the battles should be covered in detail in individual articles, this article needs to be broad brush.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll take a look.

A few points I am thinking would benefit expansion this article:

• Catholic gentry were I think mainly interested in the land issue - note particularly Tyrconnell's efforts in this direction. There had been steady increase in proportion of Catholic owned land in under Ormonde but not enough for many
• Role of James II is interesting as he tended to attract and exploit marginalised groups of all kinds rather than the tolerant-but-Anglican Ormondist party...(perhaps a fruitful comparison with Jacobite manifestos in the following century)
• James wasn't necessarily essential to the Irish demands; that he became so was at least partly due to Tyrconnell who seems to have viewed the Kingdoms very much as one unit
• William was mainly interested in getting his army back to fight Louis as quickly as possible
• There doesn't seem to have been a great deal of unity of purpose amongst the Jacobite leadership - several factions including Tyrconnell, Sarsfield, and remaining Ormondists
• 'National' interests were very fluid for those in positions of power, at least and seem to have thought more in terms of specific regimes
• Popular Jacobitism continued until the 1750s at least

A few off the top of my head, anyway! Svejk74 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it a go and then feel free to play around with it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Updates

Added a couple of extra bits - Limerick and the 1691 campaign. Still a lot of 1689-90 to update and expand. Svejk74 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All except the post Aughrim sections now updated - feel free to rewrite / edit.Svejk74 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the Church of Ireland thing; it being the 12th July, I decided not to react. It seems to be his mission in life; to quote my favourite film; It's what he does. It's all he does.:)

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries; it's always good to have more pictures, even better to have more properly formatted ones.Svejk74 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to clarify (otherwise I feel like a sad bast@#$d). I don't (really) give a stuff about picture sizes; I do care about people making changes without explanation and then claiming its to comply with some regulation they just made up.Robinvp11 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia can attract people who care more about process than useability, unfortunately, stretching to citing imaginary rules.Svejk74 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It occurs to me I've forgotten to add that control of Ulster was essential to the Jacobites as James planned to use it as a bridgehead to Scotland. Perhaps this can be added.Svejk74 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We're thinking on the same lines :) Robinvp11 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Williamite Casualties

The figure given for Williamite casualties is 10,000 soldiers from all causes. This seems very low. Considering that Williamite casualties at the Siege of Derry was as high as 8,000 dead, and 5,000 dead at the Siege of Limerick (1690). So over 10,000 died in those two engagements alone. And there were more large battles such as the Battle of Aughrim, the Break of Dromore, the Battle of Newtownbutler, the Siege of Carrickfergus, the second Siege of Limerick to name a few. Not to mention the thousands of Williamite soldiers who died of disease at Dundalk camp. I would put the Williamite casualties at closer to 20-25,000. Regardless of what the source says, it just doesn't make sense, even if the lowest estimate of Williamite casualties at every battle is to be believed. Iamdmonah (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right; several thousand died of disease in 1689 alone. If you fancy it updating it, that would be really useful. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That is, however, what the source says and it is based on Story's contemporary estimate. He says 7,000 deaths from disease in the army - presumably most of these were at Dundalk and outside Limerick - plus 2,037 deaths in battle, plus officers, or killed by rapparees (800). As the Jacobites had a great deal of trouble even keeping their army together, except at Aughrim, I can't see that many battlefield casualties can have been inflicted.

As for the breakdown of those deaths in battle, it's worth recalling that most of the several thousand who died in Derry were civilians who succumbed to the siege conditions; Williamite casualties at the Boyne were minimal; Newtownbutler and Dromore were comparatively minor actions. He may arguably undercount Williamite deaths at Aughrim but I think rather than putting this down to propaganda on Story's part his total figure for Jacobite casualties is also fairly low (12,676 "killed or died", plus rapparees). Note he also calculates the huge figure of 100,000, mostly civilian, lives lost during the war to all causes.

If you have other figures with an actual source, it might be worth putting a range but at present Story's figures appear fairly defensible, with reservations.Svejk74 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Clodfelter has Williamite losses as 500 at the Boyne, 1,600 at Aughrim, 2,000 in the failed assault on Limerick, 3,000 at Derry (which I agree probably includes civilian militia). These are only the largest actions, while most calculations in this period are 3 deaths from disease for every one battlefield casualty. 10,000 does seem low, but needs a Source. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Just looking at Childs' account of Aughrim and he records Ginkel's official returns: 73 officers dead, 111 injured, 600 other ranks dead, 960 wounded although casualties "probably overstated" due to understrength regiments. Problem is that the Williamite returns are not universally believed so you can find higher estimates out there. If Story was using the official returns to compile his figures there is also the possibility he may have missed out wounded who subsequently died. Anyway, here's Story's full figures-

Officers killed in battle:140; Other ranks killed in battle:2037; Killed by rapparees:800; Died of disease and other natural causes; 7000.

Does Clodfelter give a source for the figures? Svejk74 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a non-Williamite source is needed. I know it is wrong to dismiss all sources as propaganda, but take a look at the aftermath of the Battle of Aughrim for example; the Williamites initially claimed they had killed over 7,000 Jacobites while only losing 300 of their own. I don't think there are any specific or even rough estimates as to the the amount of deaths from disease at Dundalk, other than that it is generally described as "thousands" which suggests it was pretty high. But who is the person making the high estimates, e.g 3,000 Williamite dead at Aughrim? Perhaps that person's figures must be looked at. I will try and find a source now. Iamdmonah (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, Ginkel's official returns record 73 officers and 600 'other ranks' killed at Aughrim.

7,000 Jacobite dead I think comes from Story, who by his own account based this on inspecting the battlefield afterwards and finding numbers between 120-150 lying dead within one 'inclosure' (I assume he means a field boundary). I note the initial reports in Londin claimed 5,000 Jacobite dead and this was subsequently revised upwards. A few Jacobite estimates of their own dead are given by Hayes-McCoy in his 1942 article in the Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society: 2,600 dead in A Light to the Blind and 4,000 in James's own memoirs. Sadly we don't get one from John Stevens of the Grand Prior's Regiment as his notebook breaks off just before Aughrim (he did survive the battle, though).

Up to 3,000 Williamite deaths at Aughrim is suggested by Wauchope in his bio of Sarsfield, iirc. This figure according to Hayes-McCoy comes from Robert Parker (Memoirs of the most remarkable military transactions from the year 1683 to 1718) who fought at Aughrim on the Williamite side. As for Jacobite estimates of Ginkel's casualties, A Light to the Blind gives 5,000 and James's memoirs 4,000 - again these can be found in Hayes-McCoy. So, a very wide range of estimates on both sides. And that's just Aughrim.Svejk74 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a further problem has been introduced here by someone who has edited the infobox to reflect a 'standard' format without checking what the source actually says (I noticed this as they have been doing the same to a few Early Modern warfare articles recently. Story's figures are not "killed, wounded, captured, missing, sick or died of disease" as currently stated; they are simply those "killed in the field" or died of sickness. He doesn't estimate wounded, captured, or missing.

The same user also combined the figure for Jacobite soldiers killed with that for 'irregulars' / rapparees who were killed or summarily executed by William's army - again, a problem.Svejk74 (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Maps

The two maps in this article show modern day, partitioned Ireland. Maps showing the four Provinces would be far more accurate and would be an easy fix.Palisades1 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not replace the maps with more accurate ones? Palisades1 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to create one, you are welcome to do so; the issue is inserting the locations, which is the purpose of the Map.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is a very sensitive topic and Wikipedia has firm guidelines on it eg using "Derry", not "Londonderry", which many people also regard as "inaccurate". Robinvp11 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the sensitivity of the topic. Using maps that show a modern/disputed border to illustrate a 15th century war is not accurate or helpful to a casual reader. I see there was a map used earlier: . Im not sure if this image can be annotated to include other cities/towns. Palisades1 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to create a map that does the same job, then be my guest. I'm simply using Wikipedia approved templates, and as of today, these are the legally accepted international boundaries.

It's pointless discussing the issue here; you should take it up at a higher level, because this concerns Wikipedia policy (Ireland is very far from being the only area where "disputed borders" are an issue).

Let me know when you either (a) get an answer, or (b) can figure out editing the map and I'll happily amend it. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the original (removed in July 2019) and the current maps (apparently added by you in July 2019) I feel the original gives the casual reader a better overall picture of the war. The original includes Kinsale, Bantry Bay and the dates/locations of Boyne and Aughrim battles. However, missing in the original map are several locations: Lisburn, Dromore, Athlone and Kilkenny. As for amending the maps, apparently they were amended to include/exclude cities when they replaced the original. If you can amend the maps please do so. I've looked for "Wikipedia approved templates" and don't see where they can be found. I do see 123 pages under Category:Labelled map templates but there is no Ireland map therein.

I disagree that it is pointless to discuss the issue here - this is the place that discussions of these types occur. You mention take it up at a higher level - what does that mean? Again, as shown the maps represent modern day Ireland and are totally out of context for events that occurred hundreds of years earlier.Palisades1 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with user Palidades that using modern maps showing a partitioned island are unhelpful. Partition occurred in 1921, over 300 years after these wars. If different maps – without a border – can be inserted, that could offend no one Billsmith60 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If you're trying to explain a military campaign, it's very hard to do so without maps, which are essential for the general reader. I've simply used what is available on Wikipedia, and there are no grounds for it to be removed.

If different maps – without a border – can be inserted, that could offend no one.

NSS. I have now said several times that if you can find or make a map template that does the same thing, I'll happily use it. If this issue is so vital, presumably one of you won't mind putting in the work. That will solve this specific issue.

Palisades originally removed the map because it was "inaccurate", allegedly because it shows an "illegal border", which brings us onto the second and considerably more complex question ie an objection to the use of the map template on principle. Upholding that specific objection requires a Wikipedia policy decision, for which you need to go higher - there are literally dozens of similar disputes just in Europe, so it has a wider impact. If I invested time and energy I could find out who to speak with, but it's not my problem so I don't see why I should.

What I don't want to do is waste time trying to persuade each other. Even if we could do that before the sun burns out, it would still be a Wikipedia policy issue for the reasons stated above.

The map helps the general reader, it is an approved Wikipedia template, and none of the 200k plus users who have viewed this article since the edit was made have objected. Find me an alternative which does the same thing and I'll use it. Otherwise, there doesn't seem much point in this discussion (and my family is from Belfast, so I've already heard every argument on this topic from a variety of perspectives). Robinvp11 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Couple of points - in your above response you state: "Palisades originally removed the map because it was "inaccurate", allegedly because it shows an "illegal border". I did state that the maps are inaccurate because they are totally out of context, I never said anything about an illegal border. Where did you get that from? I think an apology is warranted. Also in an earlier edit summary you state "You might disagree with the map but that doesn't make it "inaccurate" and "Palisades originally removed the map because it was "inaccurate", allegedly because it shows an "illegal border"." I don't disagree with maps and I have no opinion on the border. Can you please send me a link to those "approved templates and any policies" that apply to this subject (a 17th century war - not the Troubles of the late 1960s to 1998. Many pages associated with the Troubles are protected and reverts are limited etc. I highly doubt that the Williamite War in Ireland falls under the protections afforded to the Troubles. The original map is preferable because it shows the entire island without highly outdated political information such as borders etc and it provides dates and locations of two major battles. The original map (see above) can be found in Commons - File:Map of Ireland - Williamite War.gif. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, most users spend very little time on a page and will probably look at the maps first. They portray inaccurate information and send a message to the reader that when they were inserted that due diligence did not occur. Lastly, you seem to have a sense of ownership for this 19 year old page ("Find me an alternative which does the same thing and I'll use it."). As you know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort - no one owns any page.Palisades1 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The sole purpose of these maps is to allow readers to trace the course of a campaign. If (as you claim) they are what the general reader will focus on, we clearly agree they are useful;

They portray inaccurate information; since the towns are in the right place, what else is there other than the border? Maybe I'm missing something;

Can you clarify precisely what is inaccurate about the maps, and how that affects the reader ie it's not enough to say "modern borders are out of context", you need to explain why that is "misleading" ("Gives the impression due diligence has not been done" is an impressively vague description that I will use myself when needed, thanks for that :));

Far from demonstrating "a sense of ownership" for this article (on which I have previously worked perfectly amicably with a number of other editors), I have (twice) invited you to create a map template that meets your personal criteria, while also serving its original purpose. Why not do that?

I totally agree Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. All I've asked is for you to put in the same amount of effort as I have; that doesn't seem unreasonable. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The removal of the original maps (where no one objected to "Londonderry") has not been responded to satisfactorily here, so I've added a neutrality tag to the article Billsmith60 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The removal of the original maps (where no one objected to "Londonderry") has not been responded to satisfactorily here; have you read the entire thread, because that's not the case;

We are not arguing about the removal of the original map (assuming you're referring to the one suggested by Palisades, which I believe even he admits isn't fit for purpose). That map was removed in 2012 - I don't know why, since I didn't do it, but probably because it uses "Londonderry";

I inserted new maps sometime in 2019, solely to allow readers to trace the course of a campaign, in collaboration with several other editors with an interest in Irish history. Two weeks ago, they were unilaterally deleted because they were "inaccurate" (per the edit summary).

I'm using a Wikipedia map template but as I have said several times, I have no objection to using another format, as long as it allows us to insert locations.

I just don't see why I should have to do the work, or how inviting someone else to come up with a solution that works for more than one person exhibits "a sense of ownership", or failure to collaborate;

Please explain why this is a "neutrality issue". Robinvp11 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't as far as I can see. I also happen to think the existing maps work quite well for the simple reason that the early part of the campaign took place largely north of the modern-day border.Svejk74 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume you will not be acknowledging your fabrication of the statement "Palisades originally removed the map because it was "inaccurate", allegedly because it shows an "illegal border". You also refuse to provide the requested "approved templates and any policies that apply to this subject". You also wrote "It's pointless discussing the issue here; you should take it up at a higher level, because this concerns Wikipedia policy..." Ok, what policy are you referring to that relates to maps of the Williamite War in Ireland? It doesn't exist. You asked "Can you clarify precisely what is inaccurate about the maps, and how that affects the reader..." Well the maps are obviously from the 20th/21st century and are used to describe a war in the 1600's. Im sure many readers are not familiar with the partition of Ireland and would assume the border existed in the 1600s. You also wrote "We are not arguing about the removal of the original map (assuming you're referring to the one suggested by Palisades, which I believe even he admits isn't fit for purpose)". You are assuming I don't value the original map - I do. Instead of using the current political maps I suggest using the original Wikipedia template map which shows important geographic sites not found on the current maps: Bantry Bay (site of the French landings), the river Shannon - a natural barrier mentioned in the text 6 times and two battle sites. One more point: I mentioned the problems I saw with the current maps on the talk page and waited 10 days for a discussion - none was offered. Having said all of that let me offer a possible solution. In the captions below the maps a short acknowledgement of the modern nature of the maps would make them far more sensible to a casual reader. I suggest something short like "The above Map shows the modern border in Ireland." or something like that. Thoughts?Palisades1 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC) .

Having read the most recent comment by Palisades, who says his opinions have been fabricated, I've restored the perfectly good original map that was removed without explanation Billsmith60 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've only just come back to this and I take strong exception to the claim by Palisades that I've "fabricated" his opinions. Any confusion appears to be the result of (a) an inability to actually follow his own edits, and (b) the apparent assumption that I should be doing all the research for a query he's raised.

Once again; this Map was removed (not by me) in 2012, and if you bother to track the edits, that's because it uses "Londonderry". Wikipedia specifically uses Derry as a matter of policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, so its not clear why you then feel entitled to re-insert it.

The solution is pretty simple and doesn't seem unreasonable to me; one of you learn how to create a Map in Wikipedia, using non-standard templates, and you can not only come up with one that meets your requirements, but that would be useful to others (me included). Robinvp11 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)