What if the Jacobites win the Battle of the Boyne?

[BigDave1967]

What if the Jacobite rebels win the Battle of the Boyne what are the consequences? I think James II would be emboldened by the victory in Ireland and move the fight to England. I don't think victory would be in the cards for him in the long term.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

I agree that James probably couldn't regain England long term.

He did however have the resources (and local popularity) to keep his Irish throne against the weakened and divided England and Scotland. Unfortunately he was historicaly infamously ungrateful to his Irish supporters so he probably wouldn't see it like that - in fact he might even use his victory to strongarm the Patriot Parliament into reversing their more radical decisions.

 

[Rapparee]

I wouldn't pick the Boyne as the critical or focal point. In OTL it was a skirmish, with few casualties on both sides in relation to the size of the armies deployed. The only reason its considered so lofty is the Orange Order commemorating it as Catholic cowardice and not wanting to choose a more decisive battle such as Aughrim.

Aughrim is a proper battle. The Jacobites fight fiercely, over 2,000 Williamites are killed and the only reason their losses are so heavy is thanks to their rout at the end (And their general losing his head to a cannonball). A victory there would spare Limerick suffering a second siege at least and mayhaps buy time for a French invasion of England or heavier reinforcement in Ireland.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Yes the Boyne has suprisingly few casualties but the effects on morale were immense: James essentially abandoned his own cause and the army abandoned Dublin, the capital of the kingdom to the Williamites. The only reason the war didn't end then and there was that William presented a very hard peace that the Irish Jacobites had to reject.

Aughrim was a human disaster and destroyed any hopes for a Jacobite recovery but the Boyne was genuinely important.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Yes the Boyne has suprisingly few casualties but the effects on morale were immense: James essentially abandoned his own cause and the army abandoned Dublin, the capital of the kingdom to the Williamites. The only reason the war didn't end then and there was that William presented a very hard peace that the Irish Jacobites had to reject.

Aughrim was a human disaster and destroyed any hopes for a Jacobite recovery but the Boyne was genuinely important.

I agree. From a tactical standpoint, the Boyne may have been a minor battle, but in symbolic terms it was the most important battle in the entire Irish campaign.

Now here's an idea: what if William of Orange was captured or killed at the Boyne? This would leave the Revolutionary government in London severely weakened and practically decapitated. Sure Mary II is still alive, but she can't lead an army, and with a massive defeat so soon after the revolution we could reasonably see much of the English forces go over to James's side, and a potential invasion of England itself.

 

[Thoresby]

Now here's an idea: what if William of Orange was captured or killed at the Boyne? This would leave the Revolutionary government in London severely weakened and practically decapitated. Sure Mary II is still alive, but she can't lead an army, and with a massive defeat so soon after the revolution we could reasonably see much of the English forces go over to James's side, and a potential invasion of England itself.

No it wouldn't. A dead William would actually simplify things, his dominant role was actually a major dividing line between the anti-James Tories who wanted to preserve the line of succession and principle of hereditary monarchy by handing power to Mary alone and the Whigs who wanted to make the point that Parliament made the Monarch. With William dead the dividing line is gone with Mary as sole Monarch. James II is still going to be widely despised after not only his disastrous reign, but also his fleeing Britain and even worse the actions of the Patriot Parliament which his opponents enthusiastically smeared him with. His support is essentially confined to the radical fringes of the Tories and the Highlands of Scotland.

As for the war Queen Mary II has plenty more soldiers and Generals, including the future Duke of Marlborough, plus Naval superiority to deliver them to Ireland.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

While I agree that Britain would hardly flock over to support James after a Jacobite victory at the Boyne I think it is going too far to say it would be consequence free for Mary and her supporters. Without William the Dutch might pull out of the war altogether, or at least decide their troops are better used elsewhere.

Mary would also be faced with the difficulty of landing troops in an Ireland completely under Jacobite control (I doubt Derry would hold out long if William was killed.) That has quite literally never been attempted. Even Cromwell had a secure port at Dublin to launch his campign.

I'm not saying its impossible by any means but a Maryite reconquest of Ireland would be an enormous undertaking, requiring the long term commitment of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops (and this is assuming the French don't succeed in landing significant aid) and could last many years.

 

[Thoresby]

While I agree that Britain would hardly flock over to support James after a Jacobite victory at the Boyne I think it is going too far to say it would be consequence free for Mary and her supporters. Without William the Dutch might pull out of the war altogether, or at least decide their troops are better used elsewhere.

Mary would also be faced with the difficulty of landing troops in an Ireland completely under Jacobite control (I doubt Derry would hold out long if William was killed.) That has quite literally never been attempted. Even Cromwell had a secure port at Dublin to launch his campign.

I'm not saying its impossible by any means but a Maryite reconquest of Ireland would be an enormous undertaking, requiring the long term commitment of about 40,000 to 50,000 troops (and this is assuming the French don't succeed in landing significant aid) and could last many years.

Not at all. First of all it would be highly unlikely that the entire Williamite force would be destroyed, historically the complete annihilation of the losing army has been very rare, especially as on the eve of the Boyne Ulster was firmly under Williamite control so the survivors would have somewhere to retreat to. Secondly there were 5-10,000 Williamite soldiers in Ireland who weren't present at the Boyne, mostly acting as garrisons throughout Ulster. Admittedly they were disproportionately sick, wounded or recruits but they could still defend fortresses. So it would take James several more battles and at least 6 months to completely secure Ireland at the very least, even with zero interference from Britain. Which of course there would be as Mary has plenty of troops in Britain. Finally remember that we've just reached the age of constitutional monarchy. While the Monarch still has enormous influence including the ability to make or break governments neither William nor Mary governed in the manner of Louis XIV or Charles II. Instead they had a succession of Ministers run their Kingdoms for them in concert with Parliament. The Dutch are a much bigger issue, without the influence of William the significant Dutch forces will go home to help fend off France.

 

[Simreeve]

I read a book about the Battle of the Boyne last year, and if it's right about the strengths (and weaknesses) of the two armies then a Jacobite victory there would probably have required at least a small miracle.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

Not at all. First of all it would be highly unlikely that the entire Williamite force would be destroyed, historically the complete annihilation of the losing army has been very rare, especially as on the eve of the Boyne Ulster was firmly under Williamite control so the survivors would have somewhere to retreat to. Secondly there were 5-10,000 Williamite soldiers in Ireland who weren't present at the Boyne, mostly acting as garrisons throughout Ulster. Admittedly they were disproportionately sick, wounded or recruits but they could still defend fortresses. So it would take James several more battles and at least 6 months to completely secure Ireland at the very least, even with zero interference from Britain. Which of course there would be as Mary has plenty of troops in Britain. Finally remember that we've just reached the age of constitutional monarchy. While the Monarch still has enormous influence including the ability to make or break governments neither William nor Mary governed in the manner of Louis XIV or Charles II. Instead they had a succession of Ministers run their Kingdoms for them in concert with Parliament. The Dutch are a much bigger issue, without the influence of William the significant Dutch forces will go home to help fend off France.

Those Williamite soldiers would just have seen their king die and their army defeated and as you pointed out were themselves disproportionately second rate. Are you really assuming none of them will desert or outright surrender? And of course to what extent are those soldiers Dutch or other foreigners in Dutch pay and thus as say vunerable to just abandoning Ireland altogether?

I don't doubt Mary will have troops available... but a whole second, front line army? That would take time and during that time James will have recruits flooding in from across Ireland.

 

[funnyhat]

I wouldn't pick the Boyne as the critical or focal point. In OTL it was a skirmish, with few casualties on both sides in relation to the size of the armies deployed. The only reason its considered so lofty is the Orange Order commemorating it as Catholic cowardice and not wanting to choose a more decisive battle such as Aughrim.

Interestingly, 12 July is actually the date of the battle of Aughrim and not that of the Boyne (1 July), even though the parades are generally interpreted to be celebrating the latter.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

No it wouldn't. A dead William would actually simplify things, his dominant role was actually a major dividing line between the anti-James Tories who wanted to preserve the line of succession and principle of hereditary monarchy by handing power to Mary alone and the Whigs who wanted to make the point that Parliament made the Monarch. With William dead the dividing line is gone with Mary as sole Monarch. James II is still going to be widely despised after not only his disastrous reign, but also his fleeing Britain and even worse the actions of the Patriot Parliament which his opponents enthusiastically smeared him with. His support is essentially confined to the radical fringes of the Tories and the Highlands of Scotland.

As for the war Queen Mary II has plenty more soldiers and Generals, including the future Duke of Marlborough, plus Naval superiority to deliver them to Ireland.

Not at all. First of all it would be highly unlikely that the entire Williamite force would be destroyed, historically the complete annihilation of the losing army has been very rare, especially as on the eve of the Boyne Ulster was firmly under Williamite control so the survivors would have somewhere to retreat to. Secondly there were 5-10,000 Williamite soldiers in Ireland who weren't present at the Boyne, mostly acting as garrisons throughout Ulster. Admittedly they were disproportionately sick, wounded or recruits but they could still defend fortresses. So it would take James several more battles and at least 6 months to completely secure Ireland at the very least, even with zero interference from Britain. Which of course there would be as Mary has plenty of troops in Britain. Finally remember that we've just reached the age of constitutional monarchy. While the Monarch still has enormous influence including the ability to make or break governments neither William nor Mary governed in the manner of Louis XIV or Charles II. Instead they had a succession of Ministers run their Kingdoms for them in concert with Parliament. The Dutch are a much bigger issue, without the influence of William the significant Dutch forces will go home to help fend off France.

OK I think your vastly overestimating the situation in the British isles at this point. William III is dead. His army defeated, and demoralized at having just seen their leader killed. The Dutch states-general will take temporary charge of the Republic and no doubt rather quickly recall their forces from the British isles and be put on the battlefields of Europe. And the Danish mercenaries will also be up for grabs with their employer dead. Also your forgetting a key player in all this: France. OTL Louis XIV was reluctant to send that many troops to Ireland, but here things will be different. With veteran French troops backing them up, I think the Jacobites could rather easily overtake the remaining Williamite garrisons in Ireland. And a victory in Ireland could easily lead to further risings in Scotland as well, which could be backed up by Franco-Irish troops. Really killing off William III would NOT simplify matters at all, but instead create political chaos in both Britain and the Netherlands.

 

[JennyB]

According to local legend, King William was very nearly shot by one of his own men - an Inniskilling - by mistake.

There's your POD.

 

[Thoresby]

Those Williamite soldiers would just have seen their king die and their army defeated and as you pointed out were themselves disproportionately second rate. Are you really assuming none of them will desert or outright surrender? And of course to what extent are those soldiers Dutch or other foreigners in Dutch pay and thus as say vulnerable to just abandoning Ireland altogether?

I don't doubt Mary will have troops available... but a whole second, front line army? That would take time and during that time James will have recruits flooding in from across Ireland.

OK I think your vastly overestimating the situation in the British isles at this point. William III is dead. His army defeated, and demoralized at having just seen their leader killed.

Obviously the Williamite forces would be in serious disarray, that's inevitable after a battle and twice as inevitable when the General also dies. And you're obviously correct in that the Dutch and Danish* troops (who are the most disciplined and best troops in the army) will be withdrawn rapidly. But William had 20,000 British and Ulster troops and while a large portion are either going to die on the field or desert we can assume that at the minimum 10,000 will be alive and in formed units within a few weeks. Add that 10,000 to the second line troops elsewhere in Ireland and you have a force that's only a bit smaller than the Jacobite army (26,000 minus at least 20% battle casualties on the Boyne). Now those troops are scattered all over Ulster and with shaky morale and relatively poor experience. But Jacobite army was also mostly made up of raw peasant levies and was much less well equipped than the Williamites. So while the Jacobites will have an advantage in the aftermath it won't be overwhelming and they definitely won't be able to quickly secure Ireland.

The Dutch states-general will take temporary charge of the Republic and no doubt rather quickly recall their forces from the British isles and be put on the battlefields of Europe. And the Danish mercenaries will also be up for grabs with their employer dead. Also your forgetting a key player in all this: France. OTL Louis XIV was reluctant to send that many troops to Ireland, but here things will be different. With veteran French troops backing them up, I think the Jacobites could rather easily overtake the remaining Williamite garrisons in Ireland. And a victory in Ireland could easily lead to further risings in Scotland as well, which could be backed up by Franco-Irish troops. Really killing off William III would NOT simplify matters at all, but instead create political chaos in both Britain and the Netherlands.

You are entirely correct that the death of William III would not be GOOD news but I do think it would simplify things. Whereas in OTL William was divided between securing the British throne, defending the Netherlands and helping the Austrians as part of the Grand Alliance here everyone would be more focused. The Dutch would pull out their troops and focus on defending their homeland from Louis XIV. As in OTL they would find it difficult but Louis would have his attention divided between them and Austria. Mary II in contrast while firmly committed to the war and the Grand Alliance is naturally going to focus on securing the British Isles and only after that is going to send troops to Europe. Austria is in trouble, with Mary II focused on Ireland and the more "selfish" States General prioritising the Netherlands Leopold I is going to get a lot less help.

As for French aid to the Jacobites a victory on the Boyne is going to see it stepped up. But there is a clear upper limit to what Louis XIV can or will send, remember Ireland is a tertiary theatre, there is the Central German Front, the Dutch Front, the North Italian Front, the Catalonian Front plus the Colonial Conflict in North America and the Caribbean. Ireland is a great way of keeping Britain distracted but if Louis has to choose between Ireland and Strasbourg it's a no brainer. So in the aftermath of a (highly unlikely considering the disparity of the two forces) Jacobite victory on the Boyne we are going to see London send troops, supplies and money in order to rebuild its Army in Ireland and reverse the setback. James II is going to get even more Irish peasant signing up plus French muskets and power to equip them and maybe even some French soldiers to train them. But in the long run (and remember this is year one of the Nine Years War) Britain will pour in more troops and money than James and Louis can match.

*who are in the pay of the Netherlands and are effectively Dutch as far as this scenario is concerned.

 

[V-J]

Agreed with Thoresby that a Williamite debacle is going to be a boon to the Jacobites in the short-term but by no means a conclusive event in the war. It'll prolong the war in Ireland but little else.

People are getting much too excited by talking about recruits 'flooding' in to James. The initial force James assembled in Ireland of around 45,000 was so raw and unwieldy it had to be culled down to size to make it manageable. Anything James can add to the army is still going to be a limited and green peasant levy. French troops are going to come in to an extent but Louis is not going to waste unnecessary resources on what he and his council always conceived of as a simple distraction theatre.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for an Irish Jacobite steamroller to cross the Irish Sea and squish Mary, wonderful though that image might be.

I do however think people are underestimating the sheer effort, time and cost the Maryites would have to pour into reconquering Ireland. Even in OTL the war took two and a half years and tied up 44,000 Williamite troops - and this with a near surreal string of Jacobite bad luck.

ITL everything that would suggest a quick end to the war is gone, starting with William himself. I can imagine no circumstances under which the rabidly anti-Irish, anti-Catholic British parliament would agree to something like OTL Treaty of Limerick which means the war is more likely going to be one of Cromwellian harshness against a stronger foe.

Will the Maryites win? Yes, barring a truly disastorous defeat but the war will drain a great deal of British strength. Think the original Nine Years War.

 

[Thoresby]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for an Irish Jacobite steamroller to cross the Irish Sea and squish Mary, wonderful that image might be.

Because absolute Monarchy and forcibly imposing Catholicism on England is a good thing?

I do however think people are underestimating the sheer effort, time and cost the Maryites would have to pour into reconquering Ireland. Even in OTL the war took two and a half years and tied up 44,000 Williamite troops - and this with a near surreal string of Jacobite bad luck.

ITL everything that would suggest a quick end to the war is gone, starting with William himself. I can imagine no circumstances under which the rabidly anti-Irish, anti-Catholic British parliament would agree to something like OTL
Treaty of Limerick

Totally agree. A loss on the Boyne means a long war in Ireland, meaning a much smaller British contribution to the fighting in Europe and a much more successful France.

which means the war is more likely going to be one of Cromwellian harshness against a stronger foe.

Remember Cromwell invaded in the 9th Year of the War and the fighting was largely over within 30 months. While he was undoubtedly brutal by modern standards the majority of casualties occurred before his arrival. It's just that after the Restoration it suited everyone to paint him as a the villain of piece when he reality he wasn't much worse than anyone else and by the rapidity of his victories at least brought the carnage to an end.
As for this scenario Ireland would be the real loser. There would be an extra year of war at the very least meaning more dead in battle and many more civilians dead from the lawlessness, famine and random carnage that was a feature of warfare in this period.
Really the only winner from a Jacobite victory on the Boyne would be France. the Grand Alliance would suffer from British distraction, many more Irish would die in the fighting and the Jacobite cause would be even more tainted by association.

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

Because absolute Monarchy and forcibly imposing Catholicism on England is a good thing?

No, but no worse than forcing an illegal, unwanted regime and Protestantism on Ireland.

Totally agree. A loss on the Boyne means a long war in Ireland, meaning a much smaller British contribution to the fighting in Europe and a much more successful France.

True.

Remember Cromwell invaded in the 9th Year of the War and the fighting was largely over within 30 months. While he was undoubtedly brutal by modern standards the majority of casualties occurred before his arrival. It's just that after the Restoration it suited everyone to paint him as a the villain of piece when he reality he wasn't much worse than anyone else and by the rapidity of his victories at least brought the carnage to an end.
As for this scenario Ireland would be the real loser. There would be an extra year of war at the very least meaning more dead in battle and many more civilians dead from the lawlessness, famine and random carnage that was a feature of warfare in this period.
Really the only winner from a Jacobite victory on the Boyne would be France. the Grand Alliance would suffer from British distraction, many more Irish would die in the fighting and the Jacobite cause would be even more tainted by association.

I don't want this to get derailled by Cromwell but I do wonder why everyone remembers the war when the real damage he inflicted was the peace.

I would expect a Maryite peace to be equally harsh, perhaps moreso.

That said, however hard on the individual it would have an upside; the enormous brain drain to the continent would never have gotten started and at some point there would have been another rebellion that the British would have been too thinly stretched to defeat.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Because absolute Monarchy and forcibly imposing Catholicism on England is a good thing?

As someone who has done extensive research on the Jacobites and the reigns of the later Stuarts I take offense at your comment. NOWHERE did James or his supporters say they wanted an absolute monarchy. James was no different then any other monarch in Europe. He at least attempted to work with Parliament, but he did dissolve it when they disagreed with him. I will give you that. And I think you have a Whig perspective of what Absolute monarchy and Britain's constitutional monarchy was. By no means was it democratic or remotely fair. Really all that changed was that power was transferred from a Monarch to an oligarchy. Second, James wanted religious freedoms for all of his subjects, not the reimposing of Catholicism. Religious freedom is never a bad cause to fight for.

 

[V-J]

Whether James wanted a fully absolute monarchy is open to debate but he certainly wanted a more absolute monarchy than that which he inherited, and he amply demonstrated during his reign that he had little patience for checks on monarchical power. Indeed most of the problems that James encountered when it came to changing the religious settlement sprang from the fact that he pursued them in a politically roughshod manner.