What if the Jacobites win the Battle of the Boyne?

First of all emigration from Ireland had start with the flight of Earls 80 years earlier.

The flight of the Earls was demographically insignificant and really can't be compared to the exodus after 1690, one of the most significant population movements of the entire era.
 
The flight of the Earls was demographically insignificant and really can't be compared to the exodus after 1690, one of the most significant population movements of the entire era.

Considering that the flight of the Earls involved like 90 people while the Flight of the Wild geese had at least 14,000 people, gotta agree here.
 
In Ireland the conflict was more about the theft of land and was the bases of the conflict not religion.

That's why I said indirectly, it's always reared it's ugly head in some fashion. It's like the island has an obsession with it. Was hiking in the Mournes last weekend and had a pleasant chat with a group out walking till I was asked was I a Taig. :eek: Still considering back in the 1640s we'd have been trying to murder each other, it's a good bit of progress!
 
???

Monmouth raised 6,000 volunteers in a single month having arrived without anything resembling an army, or for that matter a clue. The man was an idiot but that hardly points to someone lacking popular support.

Am I meant to be awed? Six thousand - most of whom were rabble rather than fighting men - raised in a month in a supposedly favourable region is paltry. We were talking about James raising fifty thousand in Ireland earlier. I don't really see how you're discerning mass popular support in not only such a number but such a quality.
 
Am I meant to be awed? Six thousand - most of whom were rabble rather than fighting men - raised in a month in a supposedly favourable region is paltry. We were talking about James raising fifty thousand in Ireland earlier. I don't really see how you're discerning mass popular support in not only such a number but such a quality.

James had almost the entire run of Ireland, which was run by his chief lieutenants for several years previously and was of course the legal monarch.

Monmouth was an airhead with a feeble claim to the throne, few allies of note, a relatively small area of England to draw on and essentially no preperation.

I'm honestly baffled as to why people think six thousand volunteers is somehow less than respectable. What on Earth sort of numbers do people expect him to have raised??
 
You're only think about Ireland. Ireland cannot be regarded as separate from the rest of the British Isles. No one at the time thought of it that way and all the key players were clear that the end result would be someone sitting on the Throne in London ruling all Three Kingdoms. The dispute was who it would be. 1689 wasn't a War of Irish Independence, it was the Irish front of a British Civil War. As the fighting would go on until one side ruled all Three Kingdoms the choice is between Catholic Absolutists who would oppress everyone in the Three Kingdoms and Protestant Constitutional Monarchists would would oppress some of the people of the Three Kingdom.

Well, then I'm afraidI have to agree Rapparee's comment that if it comes to a question of who gets oppressed it is more just to have everyone oppressed. I'm baffled why I should assume Ireland 'taking one for the team' and letting the British go free (free to oppress the Irish) is the logical choice.

But as others have mentioned I'm deeply sceptical that James was the monster you paint him as.

Yes, Britain wouldn't find it easy to forcibly subdue Ireland, especially if the Irish got lucky and won a few battles. But twice in the 17th century British armies crossed the St. George's Channel and rapidly defeated prepared, equipped Irish armies. Okay both were led by skilled commanders and both times the Irish had cowards and idiots leading them. But there were very real reasons why the Battle of Boyne in OTL featured 36,000 better equipped, better organised, better trained soldiers loyal to London against 20,000 Irishmen.

Of course how many of those troops were loyal to 'London' and how many to William again? Especially how many of the best trained, best equipped?

See what i mean about the almost ASB degree of luck Britain enjoyed in OTL?

Yes Ireland under the right circumstances could put together a decent army and resist Britain. But remember in the long run Hugh O'Neil's army was defeated and he fled to Spain. The big issue is that Ireland fell further behind throughout the 17th century. In 1600 you could plausibly fight with swords, pikes and a few gunpowder weapons, albeit at a disadvantage. Ireland could produce a few muskets and it had plenty of blacksmiths to produce swords and pikespoints. But by 1690 weapons technology has moved on and flintlocks and cannon are both more effective and much harder to produce than their predecessors and Ireland lacked the indigenous production capacity. That isn't necessarily a permanent thing, factories can be built but not overnight and especially not in the middle of a war.



But Ireland is in this era Britain's most important possession. The North Atlantic is Britain's key trading area and Ireland controls access to it, basic maritime strategy says Britain cannot allow Ireland to be hostile. While Britain has numerous overseas commitments Ireland took priority. Remember that throughout the American War of Independence Britain kept 35,000 men who would have made a difference in North America in Ireland.



The odds overwhelming favoured Britain. As it would in any contest between Britain and Ireland from 5000 BC to now. Of the two major Islands off North-West Europe one is much bigger, more agriculturally fertile and mineral rich. David can sometimes take down Goliath but on average Goliath wins.

Between 1692 and 1814 the British were involved in to the death land wars in continental Europe that required massive amounts of manpower to keep down, to say nothing of the huge manpower drain of the Royal Navy (very useful but those were able bodied men who were not serving in the army.

So less a case of David vs. Goliath and more one of a flyweight boxer vs. a heavyweight one. As I've said before in any one on one encounter the odds were firmly on Britain, but only overwhelmingly so in the 19th century. Before then Britain simply didn't have the population edge to be strong everywhere at everytime.

And the American Revolution is a particularly poor example - the Irish did force concessions out of a weakened Britain at the time by threat of force no less!


First of all it was Orangists, there never were Maryites in OTL and they are a creation of this scenario where William predeceases her. As to the rights and wrongs of it I subscribe to the Whig view that by acting like a Tyrant and trampling all over the Law he abrogated his Coronation Oath and this his subjects Oaths of Allegiance.

Actually Maryites is probably the better term for the British supporters of her illegal coup - remember they expected William to die first?

You do realise of course that taking the Whig view means William and Mary had no rights whatsoever to expect allegiance from their Irish 'subjects'? Tyranny and lawbreaking is a two way street.

And it did. Macaulay isn't the best person to get an unbalanced account of the Glorious Revolution but he does do a good job of giving the Whig line about why the Revolution happened and the Louis XIV factor is incredibly important. Everyone knew that James II was allied to Louis XIV, related (first cousin) to Louis XIV, shared a faith with Louis XIV, knew and was friends with Louis XIV due to his exile and most of all admired Louis XIV. Combine that with his actions and it's not wonder that lots of people (including me) believe that James II looked to France as a model to emulate, not an enemy to fight.

As you aknowledge Macaulay was biased.
 
James had almost the entire run of Ireland, which was run by his chief lieutenants for several years previously and was of course the legal monarch.

Monmouth was an airhead with a feeble claim to the throne, few allies of note, a relatively small area of England to draw on and essentially no preperation.

I'm honestly baffled as to why people think six thousand volunteers is somehow less than respectable. What on Earth sort of numbers do people expect him to have raised??

You're seriously talking Monmouth down for the purposes of your argument. He was an experienced and respected captain, if not commander, who had been talked about and supported as a successor to Charles only a few years previously. He landed with supplies and an expectation of serious support in a region which was believed to be highly favourable. Instead he raised a very small force, much of which was not volunteers, but impressed peasants, and the whole adventure ended in failure.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I have no doubt that many kept their counsel but were secretly pro-Monmouth, but that's wholly different from your argument, which is that people a priori were straining at the bit to push James off the throne simply because he was Catholic.
 
James had almost the entire run of Ireland, which was run by his chief lieutenants for several years previously and was of course the legal monarch.

Monmouth was an airhead with a feeble claim to the throne, few allies of note, a relatively small area of England to draw on and essentially no preperation.

I'm honestly baffled as to why people think six thousand volunteers is somehow less than respectable. What on Earth sort of numbers do people expect him to have raised??

On this issue I agree with you. If you look at contemporary discussions of the Monmouth Revolt the key thing is that he was very successful in rousing the lower orders and countrymen but very unsucessful at raising gentlemen and peers. Suggesting that in modern language he had popular but not elite support. Obviously by 1688 James had lost both popular and elite support.

Really when the question comes down to the majority or minority being oppressed, oppressing everyone seems to be the fairest answer.

That's taking Churchill's description of Socialism a bit too literally for my taste.

Hasn't the north of England always had a strong Catholic tradition? They even fought in the '45 half a century later.

Not really. It was more Catholic than the South but they were 10% of the population rather than 5%.

The Irish seemed to have been happy with the status quo, there'd been peace for around 40 years. They'd hardly have declared for James if they felt oppressed by him.

Of course the Catholic Irish were happy. They were going from being second class but not oppressed under to Charles II to the bulwark of the regime under James II. They were being offered their land, jobs and titles.

And when you look at James's policies without Whig colored glasses, you realize that they really weren't all that bad. Wanting religious toleration for Catholics and dissenters, having a standing army, a secure financial situation for the Government, and to be able to do what he believes is best for his people without a small group of self-serving nobles and landed elite questioning his every move aren't bad things, not any worse then the rest of the world at that time. Absolute monarchy, or rather semi-Absolute monarchy in England's case, doesn't automatically mean oppression, loss of liberty and a general police state. Yes you can have a bad King, just like you can have a bad Prime Minister or President, but that doesn't mean the whole system is flawed.

As Louis XIV and Fred the Great proved you can have very effective Absolute Rulers and Parliament throws up some morons. But there are both moral and utilitarian arguments against Absolute Monarchy. First of all if we take universal suffrage representative democracy as the moral ideal surely the closer a system is to that the better it is. Thus Britain was a more just society in 1930 than 1910 which was better than 1840 which was better than 1810. By that measure it's better to have the country by run by the 3% than by 1 man.

As far as utilitarian arguments go its pretty inarguable that semi-democratic and democratic regimes generally do better than their authoritarian neighbours over the long run after accounting for resources etc. West Germany outperformed East, South Korea outperformed North, Britain and the Netherlands outperformed France and Spain until they adopted democracy.
 
Absolutely bad comparison. Louis XIV was loved by his subjects, during and after his reign.

From what I've read, Louis was very popular early in his reign, but the continual warfare (and need for high taxation to maintain it) took a toll on his public approval, to the point where many were relieved when he finally died. Of course, years after his death he was lionized, when he looked good in comparison to Louis XV and XVI.
 
From what I've read, Louis was very popular early in his reign, but the continual warfare (and need for high taxation to maintain it) took a toll on his public approval, to the point where many were relieved when he finally died. Of course, years after his death he was lionized, when he looked good in comparison to Louis XV and XVI.

You're right about Louis XVI but XV was liked by his subjects and the rest of Europe too.
 
That's taking Churchill's description of Socialism a bit too literally for my taste.

Of course the Catholic Irish were happy. They were going from being second class but not oppressed under to Charles II to the bulwark of the regime under James II. They were being offered their land, jobs and titles.

Well like RossN said, why should the Irish get the grubby end of the stick? I'm just a bit baffled as to why the better option is to oppress the majority of an island. It seems a bit too akin to the Victorian era scientific racism of the sort you'd see in caricatures in Punch and the like.

I realize the Williamite war in Ireland wasn't an independence struggle. But the Irish troops fighting clearly believed in James even if he proven to be craven, the choice to leave Limerick for France was an informed one.

But this all diverges from the OP which was to see the consequences of greater Jacobite success.
 
You're right about Louis XVI but XV was liked by his subjects and the rest of Europe too.

In the first half of his reign, yes, but not so much in the second half. Giving up the Austrian Netherlands in 1748 angered many of his subjects. And then the Seven Years' War was obviously a debacle. His mistresses also were regularly criticized by the public (which had not been the case for Louis XIV).
 
...if we take universal suffrage representative democracy as the moral ideal surely the closer a system is to that the better it is. Thus Britain was a more just society in 1930 than 1910 which was better than 1840 which was better than 1810. By that measure it's better to have the country by run by the 3% than by 1 man.

The first statement is vague and the implications of the second don't stand up to scrutiny.

As far as utilitarian arguments go its pretty inarguable that semi-democratic and democratic regimes generally do better than their authoritarian neighbours over the long run after accounting for resources etc. West Germany outperformed East, South Korea outperformed North, Britain and the Netherlands outperformed France and Spain until they adopted democracy.

Those lists are less than comprehensive. What about the slave states of the USA? Rhodesia? (Uh...) Ireland? Each case derives from 1690 and I don't think it's audacious to claim each to be relevant more obviously than East Germany, North Korea, France or Spain.

What about the Holy Roman Empire? What about the prime exemplar, a warning as stark and clear as history ever provides, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? In each of these cases it's "pretty inarguable" that what you term "semi-democracy" simply entrenched more deeply a system of caste privilege immune to all challenges until the ultimate ruin of the state in question.

But the greatest mistake in any debate of this sort is to conceive of countries as undifferentiated monoliths lacking internal stress or structure. No less important than the threads connecting Wat Tyler with Cromwell or Wolfe Tone with Padraig Pearse are those connecting Tyler with Tone or Pearse with Cromwell.

Lord Castlereagh is exemplary in this regard. Like his Austrian counterpart at the Congress of Vienna von Metternich, he was one of the architects of the post-Napoleonic conservative order. By your reckoning, his dedicated service to "semi-democracy" in Britain should have made him a hero but in reality he died as perhaps the most hated man in all England. This was because the Act of Union dragooned the common man into the service -- political, financial and military -- of a miniscule clique of landowners in Ireland, and all so that it could in turn exert a poisonous reciprocal influence on their wellbeing in the houses of parliament.

Metternich's order was the more enduring and we know how it worked out in the end. A similar course was set for Britain by the likes of Castlereagh and Wellington. You may see as inevitable the actual course of British history but it's not a view they shared.
 
Last edited:
That's why I said indirectly, it's always reared it's ugly head in some fashion. It's like the island has an obsession with it. Was hiking in the Mournes last weekend and had a pleasant chat with a group out walking till I was asked was I a Taig. :eek: Still considering back in the 1640s we'd have been trying to murder each other, it's a good bit of progress!

The religious divide is an easy label to put separate settlers from the native Irish. The Name Taig
Etymology

The term is a synecdoche derived from the Irish male given name Tadhg, which is commonly translated as Tim. The name Tadhg was once so common as an Irish name that the name itself came synonymous with the typical Irishman in the same way that Paddy or Mick might be today. Hence, Irish phrases such as Tadhg an mhargaidh (lit: Tadhg of the market) or Tadhg na sráide (lit: Tadhg of the street) are similar to the English-language expression "average Joe" or "the man on the street"[2] among other similar expression. However, when used in English the name carries derogatory connotations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taig


Even today people with Irish names are assumed to be Catholic and people with British names protestant.

Even if the Irish were the same religion as the English they still would have stolen the land.

The conflict at it heart was about Ireland being invade by England and settlers being moved in to stolen land.

when you take peoples land ban them for being educated, destroy their legal, social system,language and reduce them to poverty, is it any wonder that people cling to religion when every thing else is taken away.
 
Top