Page:Studies in Irish History, 1649-1775 (1903).djvu/280

Sarsfield is no reason to believe that Sarsfield was present at or took part in the heroic defence of that town, and the battle in the streets on August 27th, at which William's army was repulsed with so heavy loss that the siege had to be abandoned—a defence as fine as any in history. Sarsfield is nowhere mentioned by contemporaries as present, and it is hard to believe that he could have been there and inconspicuous. But it may be fairly said that, more than any single man, Sarsfield was the animating spirit of that magnificent resistance.

There is no reason to underestimate this success: and once it was gained the Irish were in a better position to make terms. But when all is said and done, it comes simply to this. History proves that Ireland might, with more vigorous aid from France than she received, have been held for King James or King Louis. Even with the resources that were available, something might have been done had Sarsfield headed the Irish army, and had a free hand. Several letters in the State Papers emphasise the difficulty—sufficiently proved before—of completely subjugating the Irish. Too numerous to be killed in fight, disease and famine could alone be relied on, says one writer, to crush out the race. And to maintain an army that should so devastate the 268