League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

Churchill wrote:Pure fantasy!!!

Authors cough cough Z. Grbasic & V. Vuksic
Might as well be reading something from "Games Workshop" if your going to use this as a reliable source.
As for Danish cavalry in Ireland, I'm sure I've read somewhere that there were only four cuirassier regiments in the entire Danish Army of the time.
The three Danish regiments in Ireland were freshly raised from various other cavalry regiments, so I very much doubt these would be wearing the cuirass.
I'll give you that commanders would have worn the cuirass as a show of rank and affordability.
Not sure on the Lifeguards, the only picture I've seen of James Lifeguards is in Mike McNally's book where they are surrounding the Duke of Schomberg before striking him down.There is no sign of them wearing the cuirass.
As for the Scots dragoons, who never went to Ireland and fought in Scotland at Cromdale in Strathspey on the night of 1st May 1690 while under the command of Colonel Thomas Livingston against a Highland force of 1,200 men.
There is no way a dragoon regiment would be wearing a cuirass...as I said "Pure Fantasy".

Now comes the flak...

Ray.

Ray,

No offence intended but are you allowed to quote copyrighted material without permission? The quote you've used is pulled right off one of the amazon reviews of this book and it is copyrighted as stated at the bottom of the quote. Wouldn't like to see Barry getting into to bother with Amazon etc for this being on the website

Cheers

Gerry

P.s. I've also taken the offending quote out of this too. Would be just the thing that I end up banned for it

Ray.

Gerry,

thanks very much for that. I had not noticed that this was a direct quote lift from something else, so as Guardian Angel, I appreciate your input.

I need to state for the record that any future use of direct quotes without permission by any member of the Forum will result in an automatic ban
'sine die'.

I had enough trouble with the last series of quoted material used unauthorized and threats of litigation by some precious originators. Won't be having that again.

Ray,
The point I was making is that this period, especially with regard to Ireland, is so short of definitive & accurate uniform descriptions, that everything is only a generalisation.

Now with regard to your extensive knowledge of Jan Wyck, he apparently moved from Holland to England in around 1664, with his father, also an artist. He found patronage from the Duke of Monmouth in the early 1670's,accompanying him on campaign.
William was very impressed with his work & after following Maas to Ireland William commissioned him to paint The Boyne. He apparently painted several battle scenes & portraits of various participants in the following years, then went to Flanders with William in the 1690's, painting several actions, including the siege of Namur.

Now I don't know where or when the painting on the front cover of McNally's book is supposed to represent, but as Wyck lived all of his adult life in England, except for trips with William to campaigns on the continent in the 1690's, it is reasonable to believe,as it was painted in the 1680's (not in 1680 as you said) it was a representation of the conflict in Ireland, but as my original post said it is only a generic view of a skirmish, not a detailed study drawn from real life.
This may also explain why it was purchased in 1958 by the Ulster museum in Belfast, who it would appear think that it has some relevance to Irelands history.
Great portrait of William by Wyck in full harness



Another portrait of William


Not sure if he's wearing that armour underneath his coat are we?

As previously stated a small but significant number of my cavalry will be cuirassier models, just because they're bloody lovely.

Bob

I think the orange/tawny sash was also worn by Dutch subsidiary regiments so wouldn't necessarily mean the wearer was a Dutch national

Ray.

Managed to paint 6 so far. Off to work for a ouple of days but I hope. pix of 12-15 by the end of the week. Must say I am very much enjoying painting them..

I always think that you must take any uniform details which are from a portrait, painting of a battle or tapestry with a large pinch of salt. You have to remember gents that the painters are ARTISTS first and have no hesitation in changing any details which do not fit in with their ideas at the time, composition etc. it's only really over the last while that people have become more picky over the uniform details. My toy soldiers don't always have the correct details but hell it's good enough for me. !!

Ray.

Ray,
That was the point I was making at the start of this, all the pictorial evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt, including your recently discovered Danish armoured horseman.

Nobody in 1690 was accurately recording military history, they painted what their patrons wanted to see, glorification of themselves & victory to whatever side they were on.

Not sure many of Marlborough's troops looked as splendid in their uniforms at Blenheim as your boys do, but wouldn't look half as good in a shabby cloak & torn trousers, so we go for the look that pleases us the most, a bit like Churchill in that picture.

Still using the cuirassier though

Bob

Nice painting Ray,
WOW God really was on his side! Based on that painting I no longer want to be a Jacobite. LOL

Ray.

Got to finish 2 squadrons of Tyrconnel's horse first Ray, then it's the 3 Danish regiments & Schombergs horse.

Hopfully all ready for next years 1st weekender.

Bob

My God! he's appeared on THIS thread too! When I called him an opportunist I only meant when he was alive but bloody hell, even from the grave he is polluting the forum........... can't we (re)bury him somewhere please

I don't know who the fellow is with the lionskin leotard and the big club but I'm having him on my command base vignette