Talk:Battle of the Boyne

message: This page states both that the battle was "not militarily decisive" (first para) and that it was "decisive" (second para).  Which is it?
Decisive politically but not militarily. 
The Boyne was in military terms a tactical defeat for the Jacobites. They were pushed out of a defensive position around the Boyne river and forced to retreat on Dublin. But their losses were realtively light and there was no reason why they could not have regrouped in Dublin. They didn't but instead they regrouped in Limerick, where they won a victory when William tried to take it. 
However, James decided that all was lost and fled to France on the day after the battle. The upshot of this was that because ofthe Boyne, he lost whatever chance he had of regaining his throne from William. So even though the war in Ireland went on for another year, the Boyne, or to be more precise, James' reaction to the defeat at the Boyne decided the political outcome of the war.
Jdorney 15:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was decisive in that James' troops were routed. So as a battle, on its own, I reckon it could be considered decisive. --Mal 01:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: decisive or not?

message: The casualty figure of the battle must stand as the lowest ever for a battle of such a scale - of the 40 000 or so participants, under 2000 died, mostly as a result of heat exhaustion.
This is not unusual, the biggest and most decisive battle of the English Civil War was the battle of Marston Moor in which about 40,000 men fought and less than 4000 were killed. By this yard stick the Boyne was not a "minor military skirmish". Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: size of the battle

message: In the Jacobitism article the phrase "James fled to France, acquiring the nickname Séamus an chaca (James the beshitten)" was taken from one of the cited reference books. While I don't have the Gaelic, "Jim who shit(s) himself" seems to fit dick the situation better than "Jim the shit" which is effectively the translation given here. Can anyone translate this more accurately? Also, is the accent right in Séamus? 
From a TV documentary I remember something about William's lieutenant taking his cavalry west to another crossing point, so that James sent his cavalry west along the south bank to counter this threat, leaving the way clear for William's infantry to cross over, join in battle and form squares against the returning Jacobite cavalry. Hopefully someone with better memory or knowledge can add to the battle...dave souza 18:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please in terms of putting the additional info in: this is the article about the battle, and like other battle articles should give a reasonably full description of what went on, in my opinion. This article quite rightly also has a lot about the context and later interpretation, but still needs to cover the battle itself. If by "fire ahead" you want me to do it, I'm a bit tied up with other articles just now but will try to get onto it fairly soon..dave souza 10:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks, dave souza 23:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: an chaca?

message: On Official Battle of the Boyne website:
:The Battle of the Boyne, between King William III and his father-in-law, King James II, was fought on 1 July 1690 (11 July according to our modern calendar).
--ajvol 5 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
:: On the 11th Night people burn bonfires around Northern Ireland, I think this is to mark the end of the battle, then, on the 12th the battle is celebrated. You should look further into it. Keith 11:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have always known the 11th of July to be referred to as "bonfire night."  Huge bonfires are built for days leading up to it, some several stories high.  It would be nice to include a mention in the article.  User:bonfire  15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
My understanding of it is that the locals lit bonfires all around Belfast Lough to help guide William into dock at Carrickfergus. --Mal 01:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's misleading.  It was on the 1st (os), which was equivalent to the 11th (ns), but it's nowadays celebrated on the 12th.  See below @ Gregorian/Julian dates for my comments on this issue.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 or 12 July? 

message: In the opening section one will find the following sentence:
:The symbolic importance of this battle has made it one of the best-known battles in British and Irish history and a key part in Irish Protestant folklore.
In said sentence "Irish Protestant" links to Protestant Nationalist.  Clearly, in the context, this makes no sense.  I planned on changing it, but I am uncertain as to what Irish Protestant should link.  Anyone have any suggestions? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Protestant Nationalist]]"? 

message: I recovered these two paragraphs from an earlier version of the article, intending to restore them, but on 2nd look, they really are not well written.  I bring them here for discussion:
:The battle wasn't really celebrated that much until 100 years after it took place. At this time, Catholics were gaining a lot more power. As a symbol of Protestant rule over Catholic-Irish, Protestants revived William of Oranges image as a 'Defender of Protestants'. Now, people join in the Loyal Orange Order to remember the battle. The Loyal Orange Order are Loyalists who put on marches etc. in Ireland every year to remember the battle.
:The Apprentice Boys do similar things to the Loyal Orange Order. The Apprentice Boys name comes from the apprentice boys of Derry. When King James II attacked Derry, they refused to surrender. Instead, they closed the doors to the city. They were made to suffer a long siege from James until William's army finally came to help them. Over the city walls they shouted 'No Surrender' which is still a well known phrase used by Loyalist/Unionists.
An anonymous editor recently changed the 2nd paragraph to this:
:The Apprentice Boys are to the Loyal Orange Order. The Apprentice Boys name comes from the apprentice boys of Derry. The difference being "the ABOD" is not based on religion. When King James II attacked Derry, they refused to surrender. Instead, they closed the doors to the city. They were made to suffer a long siege from James until William's army finally came to help them. Over the city walls they shouted 'No Surrender' which is still a well known phrase used by Loyalist/Unionists.
But, this is not an improvement.  Clearly something about the Apprentice Boys and Orange Order should be in the article but not this poorly-written mess.  Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commemoration of the battle 

message: Why are these casualty figures low for the size of the armies involved? At the Battle of Long Island, which if you count the Royal Navy, some 50,000 did actually take part in the battle and suffered roughly the same amount of casualties as at the Boyne. (Trip Johnson (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty figures

message: The first sentence in paragraph seven states that "James was a seasoned general who had proven his bravery", however, in the middle of the twelfth paragraph it is said that "James, an inexperienced general, thought that he might be outflanked..."  Which is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.115.46 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a seasoned office (see for example Battle of the Dunes (1658)) but an inexperienced general. I am not sure that he had commanded more than a regiment in battle before this one. This question defiantly does not need a huge banner box at the top of the article. -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  James: Experienced or not? 

message: "The battle
William had landed in Ledbury in Ulster on 14 June 1690 and marched south to take Cheltenham."
as far as i can tell there is no cheltenham in Ireland.
i also found no mention of cheltenham in the references.
perhaps an editing troll did it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  section: the battle the first line appears wrong 

message: I wondered if my mother's cousin's action is worthy of inclusion? "James-Fitzgerald Uniacke, of Coolegaragh, since called Mount Uniacke, commanded a troop of cavalry, and being present when King William III's horse was shot, dismounted, and offered his to the King, who, accepting it, called him a faithful and true man, and taking a pistol from his holster said, "Let that be your crest evermore." The family crest previous to this was a dexter armed arm gauntleted, holding a hawk's lure, but James-Fitzgerald Uniacke, and his descendants have since used the motto, "faithful and brave", and taken for crest a dexter arm in armour holding a pistol." Mount Uniacke Fitzgerald of Lisquinlan and Corkbeg
A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland
By Bernard Burke
Contributor Bernard Burke
Published by Harrison, 1863
Item notes: v.2
Original from Oxford University
Digitized Jun 9, 2006
1759 pagesMifren (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  being present when King William III's horse was shot, dismounted, and offered his to the King 

message: http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/pope_cut_out_of_.htm
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0901/164.html
http://struggle.ws/talks/king_billy.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.204.84 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the pope funding william at the boyne? 

message: "The battle is also mentioned in the novel, Gone With The Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell."
Why was this in the page's intro section?  Is it remotely relevant?  I'm sure many novels mention the battle - why mention the fact, or highlight this one?
If I'm misunderstanding, and there's an especially good reason to mention it, please feel free to revert my edit, but the reason is non-obvious, so some explanation would be helpful (in the encyclopedia page, not merely here on the Talk page), and if it does to be mentioned, it probably ought to be towards the end of the page, not in the intro, a summary of the absolute key facts about the topic.
Ministry (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone With The Wind? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Boyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103140245/http://www.theboynevalley.com:80/battleoftheboyne.php to http://www.theboynevalley.com/battleoftheboyne.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The intro refers to William as Prince of Orange - Parliament declared the throne vacant in 1689 and declared William and Mary joint sovereigns, and held their coronation that year. So William was King in 1690, not merely Prince. James had vacated the throne so was, at best, a former king.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: he retained his title of "Prince of Orange" from the Netherlands 50.111.18.139 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  King vs Prince William 

message: — Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B