Talk:Siege of Kinsale

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Spanish / Early Modern C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Date

All the references I can find through Google say the climactic battle happened on December 24th 1601. Is this a Gregorian/Julian calendar thing?Demiurge 13:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not really all that much of an expert on the time period and such. But I'd be curious to find out what happened on that date... or, rather, where the discrepancy comes from. LordAmeth 23:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a letter in the Irish Times today making that very point.

Madam, - Brendan McWilliams (Weather Eye, April 6th) writes that the reformed Gregorian calendar of 1582 was not adopted in Britain or Ireland until 1752. He is misinformed as far as Ireland is concerned. It was used in the territories under the control of Hugh O'Neill and Hugh O'Donnell in the late 16th and early 17th centuries which is why the Battle of Kinsale was fought either on Christmas Eve, 1601 or January 3rd 1602, depending on which side you were on. The new calendar was also used by the Confederation of Kilkenny in the 1640s. - Yours, etc., GEARÓID O'SULLIVAN, Woodley House, Upper Kilmacud Road, Dublin 14.

I've noted it in the article. Joestynes 09:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I had it the wrong way round. January 3rd would be the Catholic date, wouldn't it? Interesting that in Republic of Ireland the British date is the one usually quoted. Maybe Christmas Eve better parallels the Good Friday/Easter Monday of other significant Irish battles. Joestynes 07:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Has anybody in Ireland ever heard somebody refer to the Battle of Kinsale as a 'siege'? 194.125.72.144 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, anyway. It's universally known as the "Battle of Kinsale". 86.46.31.148 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date arís

Hirman Morgan says the English date for the battle of Kinsale is 24 December 1601. This article has October 1601. Morgan's article is here: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:fpjYF8d4focJ:www.ucc.ie/academic/history/common/download.php%3Fid%3D108+%22palesmen%22+%22nine+years+war%22&hl=ga&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ie 86.42.68.161 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles uses the dates according to the modern calendar. The English didn't use the modern calendar at the time, but the article must hence the discrepancy. Ben W Bell talk 12:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the date in the article, 3 January 1602, fit into all of this? I would have thought that it is the modern date? 86.44.32.114 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever about the English, the Irish used the modern date/had changed to the Gregorian calendar by the time of the Battle of Kinsale so surely this article should be using the October date? 109.77.125.55 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Casualties

I highly doubt that an army of over 6000 strong only managed to cause 1-3 causualties, this figure is ridiculous! Could someone please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.134.249 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English casualties of "6000+ dead" from a force of 12,000? This figure is surely misleading, given that at no point did the English suffer a significant reverse. Certainly, over the course of the entire Elizabethan campaign the English might have lost 6000 men to disease, but this could hardly be considered a consequence of the "Battle of Kinsale". It is worth recalling that the Irish suffered many losses to disease and starvation over the same period. Some clarity and balance please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.90 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to list them as sick or dead to disease; it was after all fought during winter with poor weather and boggy marshes. Shire Lord (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Propaganda

Sorry but in my opinion who ever wrote this fair play but it seems that their very pro spainsh and is vastly dismissive of the Irish soldiers. This whole article is baiscly singing the praises of the Spanish soldiers who landed at Kinsale and theres alot of myth and untruth written about there actual involvement in this campaign. The fact is that at this time Spain was negotiating in peace talks with England and hence used this Spanish landing as a way of forcing their demands. It is historic fact that the Spainsh were under strict instructions not to engage the English forces at Kinsale. They did not "bravely" do anything in this engagement exept remain in the town of kinsale. It is incorrect to say

-" The Irish army left the field in some disorder while the supporting Spanish army led by Ocampo tried to hold the charge and the ensuing massacre"

So that would mean that the irish force of over 6000 fled in chaos leaving 200 spanish to (sucessfully!?) defend an assualt against a 6000 stong english force. No, That spanish force in question had not reached the battle, they were behind O'donells force and were not present at the engagement. The rearguard action you ve mentioned was mounted by the force under Richard Tyrell.

-The only Spanish causalties came from Disease and starvation

The rearguard action mounted by Tyrell attempted (bravely) to get between the retreating O'Neill and the advancing English cavalery - Correct. The Irish forces left the field in some disorder - this is also correct however, in fact it is overly generous to the Irish effort. O'Neill had failed to get into 'tercio' formation after wandering aimlessly the night before then suddenly finding himself too close to English lines. O'Donnell's men refused to follow him into battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.60.207 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-The Irish cavalry DID use stirrups! Why would nt they? They had every other military equipment that other European nations had(Exept Seige guns) and imported there wepons from Britian and Europe, and had military persons from Europe and England teaching them the latest in military techniques, why would they forget to mention stirrups. Also the Normans used stirrups in Ireland in the 12 century, if the native gaels had neglected to see this during the course of 400 years i'd eat my háta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.175.71 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano & Kinsale