Jacobite Irish

[rbodleyscott]

The troop classifications don't seem to correspond to the descriptions in the blurb.

The less well equipped units should surely be Musket* rather than Musket, shouldn't they?

The well-equipped ones should probably at least have the option to be 4 Musket, 2 pike rather than 5 Musket, 1 pike.

Do we have any reason to believe that they would be right up to date (5 musket, 1 pike) even if they had enough Muskets to do so? (The Restoration British army has no such units). Even if 5 Musket 1 pike was the ideal by that date, do we have reason to believe that even the best Jacobite units were that well equipped with muskets?

---------------

Are we sure we aren't over-rating the Cavalry?

[rbodleyscott]

My research would indicate that by the time of the Boyne muskets etc were not a problem but bayonets were in short supply hence the difference I tried to bring out. I would not however be against an option for musket* particularly for the pre Boyne period.
With regard to proportion of pike to shot as I recall the French had gone that way and with training from the French I assumed the better units would have mirrored this Particularly the Lifeguard. As I recall I made the less well trained units 4 shot to two pikes. At the end of the day all the arm shipments came from France.
I am as keen as you to reflect the situation accurately and remain flexible in this regard.

[nikgaukroger]

My research would indicate that by the time of the Boyne muskets etc were not a problem but bayonets were in short supply hence the difference I tried to bring out. I would not however be against an option for musket* particularly for the pre Boyne period.
With regard to proportion of pike to shot as I recall the French had gone that way and with training from the French I assumed the better units would have mirrored this Particularly the Lifeguard. As I recall I made the less well trained units 4 shot to two pikes. At the end of the day all the arm shipments came from France.
I am as keen as you to reflect the situation accurately and remain flexible in this regard.

I'm happy with John's view - it was more or less what I guess when he sent me the list.

[nikgaukroger]

Richard asked about "Séamus an Chaca":

Which means what?

To which the amswer, as Google would have shown, is "James the Shit"

[rbodleyscott]

Richard asked about "Séamus an Chaca":

Which means what?

To which the amswer, as Google would have shown, is "James the Shit"

Well we can have "James the Turd" then.

[rbodleyscott]

My research would indicate that by the time of the Boyne muskets etc were not a problem but bayonets were in short supply hence the difference I tried to bring out. I would not however be against an option for musket* particularly for the pre Boyne period.
With regard to proportion of pike to shot as I recall the French had gone that way and with training from the French I assumed the better units would have mirrored this Particularly the Lifeguard. As I recall I made the less well trained units 4 shot to two pikes. At the end of the day all the arm shipments came from France.
I am as keen as you to reflect the situation accurately and remain flexible in this regard.

I'm happy with John's view - it was more or less what I guess when he sent me the list.

If (as the blurb says) the less well trained/equipped regiments had more pikes, then they had less muskets, in which case they should be Musket*.

My problem is that the blurb is not consistent with the troops as defined in the list.

If the troops as defined are correct, then the blurb is wrong, and vice versa.

One or the other needs correction.

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry, but I don't buy this. If these regiments had more pikes, then they had less muskets, in which case they should be Musket*.

If they aimed to be as French battalions of the time then 2 pikes and 4 muskets is less muskets - if you add that the French ratios were the ideal then it should be clear.

[rbodleyscott]

Sorry, but I don't buy this. If these regiments had more pikes, then they had less muskets, in which case they should be Musket*.

If they aimed to be as French battalions of the time then 2 pikes and 4 muskets is less muskets - if you add that the French ratios were the ideal then it should be clear.

Fair enough.

I apologise for my confusion, but stating this should avoid others being likewise afflicted.

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry, but I don't buy this. If these regiments had more pikes, then they had less muskets, in which case they should be Musket*.

If they aimed to be as French battalions of the time then 2 pikes and 4 muskets is less muskets - if you add that the French ratios were the ideal then it should be clear.

Fair enough. Can I leave you to make the blurb adjustment then.

Suppose so

Can John confirm that the Irish were aiming for French ratios please? This, I guess, would probably mean French officers training the army.

[nikgaukroger]

To my surprise I found I have the Osprey on the Boyne campaign which includes a table listing the strengths of the Irish regiments, including the numbers of musketeers and pikemen. As you might expect the various regiments vary wildly, however, there are certainly a minority who justify 1:5 ratio whilst the majority justify 1:2 - and we could even add in a few who would be Musket* if we like as they have high pike ratios. I suggest this may be good for colour - even if nobody will actually take them

John - does this sound OK to you as you have more material?

[marshalney2000]

Nik, I am a bit detached from my material at the moment as I am still in the States (studying my Las Vegas gamblers army) but am not unhappy with what is being proposed. I suspect in reality that there was a great variety in the make up of units with those prior to the Boyne being the worst armed in terms of muskets while by the time of the Boyne and certainly Aughrim French arms shipments had made the proportion of muskets much higher.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Nik, I am a bit detached from my material at the moment as I am still in the States (studying my Las Vegas gamblers army) but am not unhappy with what is being proposed. I suspect in reality that there was a great variety in the make up of units with those prior to the Boyne being the worst armed in terms of muskets while by the time of the Boyne and certainly Aughrim French arms shipments had made the proportion of muskets much higher.
John

In which case, let's put in the option for the less well equipped BGs to be Musket*.

[nikgaukroger]

Nik, I am a bit detached from my material at the moment as I am still in the States (studying my Las Vegas gamblers army) but am not unhappy with what is being proposed. I suspect in reality that there was a great variety in the make up of units with those prior to the Boyne being the worst armed in terms of muskets while by the time of the Boyne and certainly Aughrim French arms shipments had made the proportion of muskets much higher.
John

In which case, let's put in the option for the less well equipped BGs to be Musket*.

I think I did, for some at least, in the draft I sent last night.

[rbodleyscott]

Nik, I am a bit detached from my material at the moment as I am still in the States (studying my Las Vegas gamblers army) but am not unhappy with what is being proposed. I suspect in reality that there was a great variety in the make up of units with those prior to the Boyne being the worst armed in terms of muskets while by the time of the Boyne and certainly Aughrim French arms shipments had made the proportion of muskets much higher.
John

In which case, let's put in the option for the less well equipped BGs to be Musket*.

I think I did, for some at least, in the draft I sent last night.

Sorry, I checked the boards before the draft.

[marshalney2000]

I am back in Uk albeit jet lagged. Will do my intro bit in the next few days to meet timescales.
John

[nikgaukroger]

I am back in Uk albeit jet lagged. Will do my intro bit in the next few days to meet timescales.
John

Cheers.

[nikgaukroger]

I am back in Uk albeit jet lagged. Will do my intro bit in the next few days to meet timescales.
John

Did I miss this?

[marshalney2000]

Running a bit behind as I ended up going to Derby last four days. You will receive hopefully later today.
John

[marshalney2000]

Running a bit behind as I ended up going to Derby last four days. You will receive hopefully later today.
John