Talk:Irish Army (1661–1801)

English Army

This patently dubious title is, in reality, about an English colonial army in Ireland. Calling it the "Irish Army" is deeply misleading to put it mildly, especially when it's saying things like "when a force of Irish Army soldiers led by Sir Henry Duke was ambushed and defeated by a rebel force under Hugh Maguire"(Battle of the Ford of the Biscuits). You'd swear the "rebels" were the native Irish, and the invading English colonial forces were the "Irish" from this. 89.101.101.75 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is. The Kingdom of Ireland was, legally speaking, an entirely separate entity from the Kingdom of England (later Great Britain) with its own executive, legislature, judiciary and army. The Irish Army was answerable to the Parliament of Ireland and was financed using money raised in Ireland through taxation. Yes, it was ultimately answerable to the English/British but it was an entirely separate entity from the English/British Army with its own officer corps and separate source of funding. 86.154.53.135 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The reality is that in the Nine Years War (1594-1603), many native Irish were in Elizabeth's armies in Ireland, such as Tibbot na Long Burke, son of Grace O'Malley (known as the Pirate Queen). --Bridei921302 (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Royal" Army?

@Spleodrach: you renamed the article from "Irish Army (Kingdom of Ireland)" to "Irish Royal Army" and then changed the text to match the new article title. I find hardly any ghits for the phrase "Irish royal army", however capitalised. On what basis did you instigate the change? jnestorius^(talk) 17:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion or Renaming

The titie of this page is an anachronism as no such entity existed with the name described. The Pale rising out was entirely separate. Terminology involving the Dublin Pale and its colonial army is somewhat contested, but this clearly refers to the English army in Ireland. I have never seen the army referred to by that name in any contemporary source, even English ones either, so its problematic also. I dont see what value this page has as it is a-historical, and i agree as pointed out above its likely causing more confusion than its solving and to be honest, id be inclined to recommend deletion. However the history of the army in Ireland is an important one so if an appropriate name can be found proper renaming could work. The other issue is it needs proper background to explain the colonial nature of this army, and the difference between it and native forces. An article title would have to be something like "English Army in Ireland", this would allow rewriting in an informative manner without confusion. Kodai (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see the phrase "Irish Royal Army" was first used in an early version of the article ("The Irish Army was the standing army of the Kingdom of Ireland which existed between 1542 and 1801. It was amalgamated into the British Army following the Act of Union, although some roles continued to exist separately. It is sometimes referred to as the Royal Irish Army to distinguish it from other forces active in Ireland"); I don't know where the author got it from. I think the "Irish establishment" would be a better title (as this can actually be referenced - seems to have often been referred to as "His Majesty's army in Ireland" in practice) but we can work out something appropriate.

I think the scope of the article is a bit broad at present. The concept is not ahistorical as there is a clear history of a separate Irish establishment, I.e. an army based in Ireland and funded by Irish taxes (particularly from the formation of the Foot Guards in 1662, then with the creation of an additional 6 regiments in 1668 if I remember correctly, though they were never particularly organised). It also has some interesting later implications that would be worth discussing, e.g. the resentment caused by having to fund a disproportionately large establishment, seen as mostly benefiting England, was a big driver behind the 18th century 'patriot' movement. But we need to distinguish between this army and the various forces brought into Ireland temporarily.Svejk74 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if the name "Irish Royal Army" was made up by someone as an equivalent of Irish Republican Army (IRA), and I couldn't find any reliable sources for it. If the kingdom of Ireland had its own standing army completely separate from the English Army, then it would make a worthwhile article. But we shouldn't name it "Irish Army" unless that's the most common name given to it by multiple academic sources. It would be misleading, as there were other (truly) Irish armies in this period. If sources don't agree on a name then we could name the article military of the Kingdom of Ireland or army of the Kingdom of Ireland.
However, if this is about an army (or several armies) controlled by the English then it should be renamed English army in Ireland. Either way, the colonial nature of the army should be made clear, as other editors have said. Svejk74 has done some good work so far, but we need more certainty about its name (if it had one). ~Asarlaí 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"If the kingdom of Ireland had its own standing army completely separate from the English Army, then it would make a worthwhile article" - it in effect had a separate standing army from 1661 up until the abolition of the Irish Parliament, and indeed one larger than the English army, but the constitutional position was a bit unusual as the article by Hand (1968) in Irish Jurist makes clear. The army was initially under the direct control of the commander in chief, the monarch, as King of Ireland. From the late 1690s it came under partial control of the Parliament of England and the monarch and from the 1760s the Parliament of Ireland finally gained some control over it. All this time it was funded from Irish crown revenues (eg the Excise).

It's not an English army in this sense, but neither is it any kind of "Irish army" in the modern understanding, though some secondary sources use the term in passing. The most accurate name for it is probably the one you see when looking at contemporary sources, where it's referred to as the "King's army in Ireland", "our army in Ireland" (if in a document addressed from the monarch) or the "King's army of Ireland" - much as Hand says. The "Irish military establishment" would also be an accurate name; problem is this isn't a clear title for an article. I would be happy with "Army of the Kingdom of Ireland" for clarity though this would also be a bit of a misnomer.

Part of the problem is that the writer of the article chucked in a load of pre 1660 stuff which is not the history of an army but rather general Irish military history. As I understand it the standing army we are talking about only comes into being in 1661. We can have some as general background (eg explaining why there was a 7000 strong army in Ireland for Charles II to 'inherit') but I had envisaged getting rid of most of it. Currently working through the 18th century stuff as there is some interesting history there although the original article includes practically none of it.Svejk74 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing citations

I have been tidying up the citations in this article, but some of them are not obvious:

• Bartlett & Jeffrey 1996 pp.116–135 introduced with Revision as of 18:00, 2 November 2017 by Jnestorius — long citation replaced with a different edition with Revision as of 14:08, 18 April 2021 by Svejk74 which was added because the newer edition was used as a short citation in Revision as of 13:49, 18 April 2021 — have fixed this one. Done
• Bartlett & Jeffrey p.235 introduced with Revision as of 08:10, 3 November 2017 by User:Lord Cornwallis — no year but probably 1996.
• {{sfn|Gilbert|1895|p=409}} introduced with Revision as of 08:56, 18 April 2021 by user:Svejk74 — needs a long citation to support the short one
• {{sfn|Childs|2009|pp=259–260}} introduced with Revision as of 11:53, 25 April 2021 by Svejk74 — lots of Childs long citations but none for the year 2009.

— PBS (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)