Page 256 note 1 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, pp. 105, 106, 113, 129, 166-9. T. Gainsford, History of the Earle of Tirone, p. 17.

Page 256 note 2 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, pp. 296, 299-300, 303, 308.

Page 256 note 3 For the authorities for this view see the references in my Scots mercenary forces in Ireland, p. 213.

Page 258 note 1 The arquebus (German hakenbuchse; sixteenth-century English form, hakbush, hackbut) was the earliest type of matchlock. The caliver was the result of a French move to standardise the bore of the arquebus. The musket was a heavier type of arquebus introduced by the Spaniards. See my article ‘The early history of guns in Ireland’ in Journ. Galway Arch. Soc, xviii. 43 ff. Cf. J. W. Fortescue, History of the British army, i. 101. For illustrations see under ‘Gun’, ‘Harquebus’, ‘Musquet’ in J. R. Planché, A cyclopaedia of costume, i, and J. Skelton and Meyrick, Arms and armour, ii, pi. cxiv-cxxii. For the arquebus see A. Demmin, Illustrated history of arms and armour (1901), pp. 68, 487, 514,

Page 258 note 2 C. Oman, The art of war in the sixteenth century, pp. 30 ff.

Page 258 note 3 E. F. Dillon, ‘The army: armour and weapons’ in Shakespeare's England, i. 139. This explains the reference in Cal. S.P. Ire., 1574-85, p. 294, where a Scots and Irish force is said to have retired at once on hearing the cry of ‘Bowes’ in MacWilliam Burke's camp, which they meditated attacking. The inference is that they thought there were English forces there. The bill was a shafted weapon with a broad, one-edged blade, a hook and a spear point. It was more adapted for cutting than thrusting. For illustrations, see B. E. Sargeaunt, Weapons, pi. 5, no. 11 ; 10, no. 6 ; pp. 24-25. See also Cal. S.P. Venice, 1534-54, no. 703.

Page 258 note 4 Oman, op. cit., p. 320.

Page 258 note 5 Ibid., p. 384.

Page 259 note 1 Fortescue, op. cit., i. 117, 120.

Page 259 note 2 See G. A. Hayes-McCoy, ‘The early history of guns in Ireland,’ p. 52. Cf. C. ffoulkes, The Gun-founders of England, pp. 4, 29.

Page 259 note 3 Dillon, op. cit., i. 138, and, for illustrations of pikeheads, Skelton and Meyrick, op. cit., ii. pi. lxxxvi.

Page 259 note 4 Oman, op. cit., p. 52. The target was the buckler or small shield.

Page 259 note 5 Fynes Moryson, Itinerary (ed. of 1907-8), ii. 336. At the muster near Newry in June 1601 of a force of 1,250 there were : 87 officers, 112 targets, 291 pikes, 125 muskets, 635 calivers; 593 men were English, the rest Irish (ibid., ii. 403).

Page 259 note 6 Ibid., ii. 291-3.

Page 259 note 7 Oman, op. cit., p. 386.

Page 259 note 8 Ibid., p. 289.

Page 260 note 1 For example, in the references in Pacata Hibernia (ed. of 1633), pp.22,31,45.

Page 260 note 2 Skeffington's forces in 1535, for example (Cal. Carew MSS., 1515-74, p. 63).

Page 260 note 3 Of 2,000 men mustered in Dublin for service in Scotland as late as 1545, only 300 were equipped with firearms. 100 were of the king's retinue, 50 with ‘half hakes’ or short arquebuses and 50 archers. The rest were galloglas, archers and kern, of which latter 250 were ‘gonners’ (S.P. Hen. Fill, iii. 541).

Page 260 note 4 Cal. Carew MSS. 1515-74, p. 76.

Page 260 note 5 Hayes-McCoy, ‘The early history of guns in Ireland,’ pp. 59-60.

Page 260 note 6 Fortescue, ‘The army: The soldier’ in Shakespeare's England, i. 112-113 ; History of the British army, i. 128 fF. For an example of a muster warrant of about 1605 see Journ. Soc. Army Hist. Research, iii. 172.

Page 260 note 7 See Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 248-51.

Page 260 note 8 B. Rich, New description of Ireland, p. 109, says that it was a ‘ speciall and choise company ‘ that had not three Irish to one English in the ranks.

Page 261 note 1 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 416.

Page 261 note 2 See J. Derrick, Image of Ireland, pl. VIII, showing English army on the march. Fortescue, op. cit., i. 120.

Page 261 note 3 Ibid., i. 153-5.

Page 261 note 4 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, p. 486.

Page 261 note 5 Pacata Hibernia, p. 25 (spelling modernised).

Page 261 note 6 N. Dawtrey, ‘Notes on Ireland,’ 1594, printed in app. iv of J. Dawtrey, The Falstaff saga.

Page 262 note 1 J. Hooker, ‘The supplie of the Irish chronicles’ in Holinshed and Hooker, Chronicles (1586), ii. 113 (spelling modernised). Sidney (quoted in D.N.B., s.v, Shane O'Neill) says ‘ He armyth and weaponyth all the peasantes of his cuntre, the fyrst that ever so dyd of an Irishman’.

Page 262 note 2 P. Lombard, De regno Hiberniae Sanctorum insula commentarius (1632), pp. 359-60 ; M. J. Byrne, The Irish war of defence, pp. 31-3.

Page 262 note 3 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 189. In allusion to the fact that one of the principal rations of the Irish soldier was butter.

Page 262 note 4 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, p. 322.

Page 262 note 5 Printed in facsimile in Facs. Nat. MSS. Ire., iv, pt. I, pi. XXX; and printed in UJA, series 1, vi. 57. Parts of it deserve comparison with the English’ Statutes and Ordynances for the Warre’ of 1544, reprinted in Journ. Soc. Army Hist. Research, vii. 222 ff. It is interesting to find galloglas described in 1537 as ‘noon other but as … sowchynners ‘, that is, Switzers, or Swiss mercenaries. S.P. Hen. VIII, iii. 448.

Page 263 note 1 Oman, The art of war in the middle ages, i. 402 ff. The Irish cavalry, however, was often praised by the English. Speaking of Tyrone's forces in 1595, Sir G. Fenton said : ‘touching horsemen they do greatly overtop us, as well in numbers as in goodness of horses’ (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596, p. 382). But in October 1601 Carew relied on the English superiority in cavalry to beat the Irish (ibid., 1601-3, pp. 139-40). For a comparison of the English and Irish horse see O'Sullivan Bear in M. J. Byrne, Ireland under Elizabeth, p. 110.

Page 263 note 2 Cf. the eulogy on Tyrone in P. Damaschino, La spada d'Orione (1680), pp. 384-94.

Page 264 note 1 T. Blenerhasset, A direction for the plantation in Ulster (1610), p. [23]. For a consideration of the general strategic position in Ulster see J. J. O'Connell, The Irish wars, pp. 15, 16, 87.

Page 264 note 2 Pacata Hibernia, pp. 32, 36-7. It is to be noted that the earl of Tyrone is referred to throughout this paper as leader of all the Irish forces. It will be understood that he had full control only of the Tyrone men. O'Donnell's command and some of those of his other adherents were separate.

Page 264 note 3 Ibid., pp. 119-28.

Page 264 note 4 Russell's Journal, BM, Add. MS. 4728, ff. 64-7. Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 247.

Page 264 note 5 Pacata Hibernia, pp. 5 5-6. For O'Donnell's campaigns in Connacht, see Lughaidh O'Clery, Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, ed. Murphy, but cf. Paul Walsh, * Historical criticism of the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell’ in IHSt., i. 229 ff., and the more correct text in Archiv. Hib., vii. Appendix. Cf. AFM.

Page 264 note 6 AFM 1601. Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601-3, pp. 132-133.

Page 265 note 1 AFM, 1601. Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601-3, pp. 108, 117, 133-7, 141, 145, 156, 172.

Page 265 note 2 See my ‘Ballyshannon : its strategic importance in the wars in Connacht, 15 50-1602’ in Journ. Galzuay Arch. Soc, xv. 141 ff. O'Connell (op. cit., p. 87) points out, however, that an Irish victory in Connacht could mean but little if England were victorious in the east.

Page 265 note 3 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596-7, pp. 372-5.

Page 266 note 1 Tyrrell's force in the midlands in 1601 was estimated at from 400 to 1,000 men (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601-3, pp. 141, 145, 148, 156).

Page 268 note 1 See his requests for heavy guns in his letters to Spain quoted in Murphy's introduction to O'Clery, Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, pp. cxviii, cxix-cxx. See below, p. 269.

Page 268 note 2 Bagwell, Tutors, iii. 254.

Page 268 note 3 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596-7, p. 367.

Page 268 note 4 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 209-10.

Page 269 note 1 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 431-2.

Page 269 note 2 See the campaign in Moryson, and cf. O'Sullivan, tome iii, bk. vi (Byrne, op. cit., pp. 132-50).

Page 269 note 3 Docwra, ‘Narration’, in Miscellany of the Celtic Society (1849), with which cf. the document on the Derry area printed in UJA, series 1, v. 140 ff. See O'Connell, op. cit., p. 99, and T. W. Moody, Londonderry plantation, pp. 52-6.

Page 269 note 4 Letter from Dungannon to the Spanish court, 24 June 1601, printed in Murphy, op. cit., introduction, p. cxvii.

Page 270 note 1 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 386-9. The nominal total was thus 9,700 foot, 649 horse; actually the figures would have been a good deal less.

Page 270 note 2 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601-3, pp. 153, 156, 166, 172.

Page 271 note 1 Oman, The art of war in the sixteenth century, p. 34. Fortescue, ‘The army : The soldier’ in Shakespeare's England, i. 120.

Page 271 note 2 For example, at Kinsale. See below, p. 278.

Page 271 note 3 This was the phrase commonly in use for the most advanced section.

Page 271 note 4 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 340. Essex, on the march in difficult country in 1599, went in this order—forlorn hope (40 shot and 20 ‘shorte weapons’), vanguard, baggage and part of his cavalry, battle, another squadron of cavalry, rear, 30 horse as a ‘retreate’. On either side of the van, battle and rear, were wings of shot, ‘enterlyned withe pikes’. See Harington, Nugae antiquae (ed. T. Park, 1804), i. 273.

Page 271 note 5 The Scots mercenaries were celebrated archers. See Cal. S.P. Ire., 1509-73, pp. 126, 442 ; Cal. Carew MSS., 1515-74, p. 260 ; Spenser, View of the state of Ireland (ed. W. L. Ren wick), p. 74.

Page 272 note 1 Cf. the disposition of Clanrickard's force at the battle of Knockdoe, 1504; ‘they sett forward their galeglass and fott men in one mayne battayle, and all ther horsmen on ther lyfte syde’ (Book of Howth, quoted in D. Bryan, The great earl of Kildare, p. 242 ff.).

Page 272 note 2 The best guide to the action is John Thomas's map in BM, Cott. MS. Augustus I, ii, 38 (reproduced in my Scots mercenary forces, p. 216). Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6 pp. 166-8. Bagenal's Journal in PRO, S.P. Ire., Eliz., vol. 172, no. 18 iii. AFM, 1593. O'Sullivan in Byrne, op. cit, p. 72. Both the English wings of horse seem to have charged.

Page 273 note 1 Map of the action, reproduced from contemporary original in TCD, in Facs. Nat. MSS. Ire., iv, pt. I, pi. xxiii. Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 283.

Page 273 note 2 These were pieces of field artillery. The rabinet, or robinet, weighed 200 lbs., had a bore of diameter 1 1/4 ins. at the mouth and fired a shot weighing 1 lb. with 1/2 lb. of powder. The falcon weighed 800 lbs., had a bore diameter of 2 1/2 in. and a shot, with 2 1/2 lbs. of powder, weighing 2 1/2 lbs. See Journ. Soc. Army Hist. Research, ii. 2.

Page 273 note 3 Protective works for guns in the form of wicker baskets filled with earth.

Page 274 note 1 Moryson, op. cit., ii. 407-8. For an illustration of an attack with guns protected by gabions made of sacks of wool on a fort not unlike what that at the Blackwater must have been, see reproduction from an Italian work of 1613 on artillery in Journ. Soc. Army Hist. Research, ii. 189.

Page 274 note 2 Bagwell, op. cit., iii. 253, 285, 299.

Page 274 note 3 For a reproduction of a map showing the siege of Enniskillen by the English, Feb. 1594, from BM, Cott. MS. Augustus I, ii, 39, see Journ. Soc. Army Hist. Research, xi. 82. Falcons and a rabinet are shown.

Page 274 note 4 O’Sullivan in Byrne, op. cit., 103. Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 286, 295. D. Mac-Carthy, Life of Florence MacCarthy, p. 473.

Page 275 note 1 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, pp. 260, 262. O'Sullivan in Byrne, op. cit., p. 80. AFM, 1594. Ir. MSS. Comm., The chronicle of Ireland, 1589-1608, p. 84. The forces on either side were estimated at: English, 600 foot, 76 horse ; Irish, about 1,000 men.

Page 275 note 2 Bagwell seems to confuse this with the action at Clontibret, co. Monaghan, fought on 27 May 1595. At Clontibret O'Neill fought a similar action with Bagenal, who, having provisioned Monaghan, was marching to Newry. O'Neill approached the English ‘ with horse and foot as he found occasions, being ever strengthened with battalions for his better retreat placed in the skirts of their fastness’ (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6 p. 320). See Paul Walsh, ‘The Battle of Cluain Tiobrad’ in Ir. Book Lover, xxi. 103-6. O'Sullivan's account (in Byrne, op. cit., p. 86) is incorrect.

Page 276 note 1 Cal. S.P. Ire., 1592-6, pp. 382, 384-6, 390, 392. Trevelyan Papers (Camden Soc), ii. 94-5.

Bagenal, whom Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 257, follows, dates the fight as Sept. 4. Captain Stafford and Rice ap Hugh say Sept. 5.

Page 276 note 2 For the Curlews see Sir John Harington, Nugae antiquae (1804), i. 256, 265.

Page 276 note 3 For Cerignola, see Oman, op. cit., p. 53.

Page 277 note 1 A saker was a piece of artillery for field service. It weighed 1,500 lbs., had a bore diameter of 3 1/2 in. and fired a shot weighing 5 lbs. with 5 lbs. of powder.

Bagenal, whom Bagwell, Tudors, iii. 257, follows, dates the fight as Sept. 4. Captain Stafford and Rice ap Hugh say Sept. 5.

Page 277 note 2 Contemporary map preserved in TCD and reproduced in Facs. Nat. MSS. Ire., iv, pt. I, pl. xxiv. Cal. S.P. Ire., 1598-9, pp. 224-9, 236-8. O'Sullivan in Byrne, op. cit., pp. 105-12. Bagwell, Tutors, iii. 297-301.

Page 277 note 3 See above, p. 269.

Page 277 note 4 Moryson, op. cit., iii. 340-2.

Page 277 note 5 Clifford says that during his retreat from Ballyshannon the Irish ‘came close, horse and foot, to our battle and we still defended ourselves with pikes’ (Cal. S.P. Ire., 1596-7, p. 375).

Page 277 note 6 Pacata Hibernia, pp. 82-3.

Page 278 note 1 Even Lughaidh O'Clery, his apologist, admits this. See Paul Walsh, ‘Historical criticism of the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell’, in IHSt., i. 235.

Page 278 note 2 Sedgemoor, 1685, and the movement on Nairn before Culloden, 1746, are sufficient to prove the difficulty of this manœeuvre.

Page 279 note 1 O'Clery, in Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, translated in IHSt., i. 233. The chief accounts of the battle are in Cal. S.P. Ire., 1601-3, pp. 240-2 ; Pacata Hibernia, with map; AFM O'Sullivan in Byrne, op. cit., pp. 146-7; Cal. Carew MSS., 1601-3, pp. 191-4; Moryson; Bath's account in C. P. Meehan, Fate and fortunes of Hugh O'Nei and Rory O'Donel, pp. 530 ff.; Mountjoy's report in Trevelyan papers, ii. 104-6; O'Clery's account in Murphy, op. cit., pp. 311-9. Mountjoy's own account has been preferred to that to be inferred from the map in Pacata Hibtrnia in arriving at the above summary. See also J. Carty, ‘ Contemporary accounts of the battle of Kinsale ‘ in Bull. Ir. Comm. Hist. Sc, no. 6.