[60]From this we learn that William sent his Irish prisoners to redeem his Dutch soldiers from France, and that Louis used them to fill his ranks on the continent; while the Irish officers, who could not be induced to abandon their own cause, were left to languish in prison.
[61]Ath luin. Anglice, Ford of the Moon.
[62]Of these twenty-two men, the name of but one is known to history: that of Sergeant Custume, or Costy, who headed the first ten, and who was, of course, among the victims.
[63]The French officers chided their recklessness, and asserted that they had never seen such bravery displayed by the men of any nation.—Rawdon Papers, letters C. L. I. and C. L. II.
[64]"In this retreat the Conough regiments grew very thin, so that the foot, by desertion and maroding, was reduced from 19,000 to about 11,000 men." —King James's Memoirs, Vol. II., pp. 455 and 6.
[65]As we find him, according to Captain Viller's report, at Ballinasloe on the 7th, and apparently determined to give battle there, it is reasonable to infer that he did not retire until after the storm of the 9th.
[66]Story calls this building the Castle of Urrachree; but the other historians style it a house, perhaps to distinguish it from the Castle of Aughrim, and to avoid repetition.
[67]Some writers say only two abreast. But if Story's map be any thing more than a fancy sketch, the narrowest part of this road would have afforded ample room for six horsemen.
[68]That is, if all things else were equal, the position would be worth 1,000 men to the army occupying it, which would still leave an advantage of 9,000 men, at least, in favor of Ginckle, irrespective of his vast superiority in artillery.
[69]Some very reliable historians,—among whom may be instanced Taylor and O'Driscoll,—lean to the opinion that Sarsfield was not at the battle of Aughrim, but only adopt it as a probability. This opinion also gains credence from a tradition still received in that neighborhood: that, owing to an altercation with St. Ruth, on the evening preceding the battle, he withdrew his own immediate command to Redmount Hill, about six miles distant, in a south-easterly direction, whence he returned to the field next day, but too late to restore the battle. That the altercation occurred, and that each general threatened to place the other under arrest, is abundantly corroborated; but by the same testimony the presence of Sarsfield is also established. Story names him as second in command on the day of battle, and the weight of testimony sustains that belief. But, what renders it certain, beyond peradventure, is this simple fact: that had Sarsfield, through neglect or petulance, caused the loss of that battle, he would never have appeared in France. There he would have been held accountable by King James; and neither from him, nor from the French monarch, would he have received the consideration that was afterwards accorded him. On this consideration, if on no other, the former opinion is positively rejected.