Ireland: The People's History of Ireland, Volume 1 (of 2)Finerty, John F. (John Frederick)
History
Ireland: The People's History of Ireland, Volume 1 (of 2)
Finerty, John F. (John Frederick)
Ireland -- History
The principal officers who fell on the English side, at Aughrim, were
Major-General Holztapfel, who commanded Lord Portland’s horse at
Urachree; Colonel Herbert, killed in the main attack on the Irish
centre; Colonel Mongatts, who died among the Irish ditches while trying
to rally his routed command; Major Devonish, Major Cornwall, Major Cox,
and Major Colt. Many other officers of note died of their wounds at the
field hospital established on the neighboring heights of Garbally—now
converted into one of the most delightful demesnes in Europe; and some
who survived the field hospital died in the military hospitals of
Athlone and Dublin. Those who fell in the battle were buried on the
field, with the usual military honors.
Captain Parker, who fought in the English army in this battle, and who
has left a narrative, frequently quoted by O’Callaghan, Haverty, Boyle,
and other historians, says: “Our loss was about 3,000 men in killed and
wounded,” and, as he was in the thick of the fight and came out
unwounded, he had full opportunity, after the battle closed, to verify
his figures. He certainly could have no object in exaggerating the
English loss, for the tendency of all officers is to underrate the
casualties in their army. And Captain Parker says, further: “Had it not
been that St. Ruth fell, it were hard to say how matters would have
ended, for, to do him justice, notwithstanding his oversight at Athlone,
he was certainly a gallant, brave man, and a good officer, as appeared
by the disposition he made of his army this day.... His centre and right
wing [after his fall] still held their ground, and had he lived to order
Sarsfield down to sustain his left wing, it would have given a turn to
affairs on that side”—“or,” O’Callaghan says in comment, “in other
words, have given the victory to the Irish.”
Lord Macaulay—anti-Irish as all his writings prove him to have been—says
in his “History of England”: “Those [the Irish] works were defended with
a resolution such as extorted some words of ungracious eulogy even from
men who entertained the strongest prejudices against the Celtic race.”
He then quotes Baurnett, Story, and, finally, the London “Gazette,” of
July, 1691, which said: “The Irish were never known to fight with more
resolution.”
In his interesting, but partial, “Life of William III,” published in the
beginning of the seventeenth century, Mr. Harris, a fierce
anti-Jacobite, says: “It must, in justice, be confessed that the Irish
fought this sharp battle with great resolution, which demonstrates that
the many defeats before this sustained by them can not be imputed to a
national cowardice with which some, without reason, impeached them; but
to a defect in military discipline and the use of arms, or to a want of
skill and experience in their commanders. And now, had not St. Ruth been
taken off, it would have been hard to say what the consequence of this
day would have been.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account