Talk:Siege of Kinsale

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There was a letter in the Irish Times today making that very point.  <BLOCKQUOTE>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.</BLOCKQUOTE>I've noted it in the article.  Joestynes 09:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Date

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Date arís

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: English Casualties

message: 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)
thread_title: Spanish Propaganda

message: *Huaynaputina
*"Episode three sees scientists examine the cause of near Artic conditions that occurred during the Battle of Kinsale, a massive volcanic eruption on the other side of the world. It could explain how the most important battle in Irish history was won and lost".
*0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcano & Kinsale