Talk:Irish Confederate Wars

message: I have come to this section (Irish_Confederate_Wars#The_Rebellion_-_1641-42) via list of massacres. The source for the massacre in Kilwarlin woods in the list of massacres was given as the  Ulster Journal of Archaeology (volume 8, 1860) By Ulster Archaeological Society Page 79. 
On page 79 they are quoting a source (Proceeding of the English and Scottish forces in Northern Ireland, A. D. 1642: Chapter 2. The manner or their march towards the Nury, with the taking a Fort neere [sic] Kilwarlin Woods.)  that took part on the Protestant side stating it was a skirmish and that about 80 enemy were killed or taken prisoner.  Now there probably are other sources that state it was a massacre but I think they should be cited. 
Googling for "Ordinance of No Quarter" returns two sources
*Pádraig Lenihan, "Confederate Catholics at War, 1641-49" Page 211 
*Thomas Bartlett, Keith Jeffery.  "A Military History of Ireland" page 305
Lenihan makes a mistake calling the English Parliament British (Scotland and England were separate at the time) but Lenihan also makes it clear that this Ordinance only applied to Irishmen in England not in Irishmen in Ireland  (note that the Irish did not have to be papist, Irish Royalist protestants who fought in Englandwould probably have fallen foul of this as well).
Bartlett and Jeffery make much the same point that it was a Parliamentary response to Charles I receiving forces from Ireland to fight his war in England. 10,00 troops from the Kilkenny Confederacy to England (and a further 2,000 to Scotland to aid Montrose). So to place the "Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish". So as the sentence containing the Ordinance was very misleading, I have removed it.  --PBS (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Irishmen were in England -- I don't know how many but Thomas Bartlett, Keith Jeffery state 10,000 in the reference given above. --PBS (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There were obvious difficulties about the employment of Irish Catholic soldiers on mainland Britain; 10,000 troops  sent by the Kilkenny Confederacy to reinforce the royalists in England and Wales in 1643-4 excited intense antagonism, while undoubtedly contributing in a major way to the prolongation of Charles I's resistance to 1646.43
Don't think it could be much clearer!--PBS (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It would not surprise me that it was not correct, as there are few reported massacres of Catholic Irish soldiers in England and if there had been 10,000 running around one would have expected some serious fighting, and apart from a few hundred massacred after  one of the sieges (where the English garrison were allowed to leave with military honours) -- can't remember which one -- I can not  recall reading about any other incidents. --PBS (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rebellion - 1641-42 

message: Should the conflict in Ireland between 1641-1653 be considered one war or three?. Many of the articles seem to point in the direction of the former but I would suggest they should be divided into three groups 1:1641-42 the Irish rebellion; 2: 1642-1648 the Confederate wars & 3: 1649-53 the Cromwellian Conquest.
Inchiquin (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One war or three?

message: the section on Cromwellian invasion, is much more POV when describing tactics than when similiar tactics were described in previous sections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.52 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cromwell

message: I am setting up a new Military history task force at  Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum all welcome to join. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum]] 

message: This following unreliable source contains a list of battle which may be a useful starting point for an expansion to this article
*
-- PBS (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of battles 

message: The article continually uses the word "Protestant" to refer to any non-Catholic Christians.  The Scottish Presbyterians were Protestant.  The English settlers, however, were probably Anglican, weren't they?  The Anglican split from the Roman Catholic Church was a purely administrative / political move, not a theological one.  They weren't part of the Reformation, didn't "protest", didn't follow Reformation theology, and aren't Protestant any more than the Eastern Orthodox are.  It would be better to use the word Anglican to refer to Anglicans, regardless of the common Irish usage of the word "Protestant". Philgoetz (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In both Ireland and England at the time, they were always referred to as 'Protestants'. It would be unhistorical to impose another terminology.Jdorney (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I was incorrect anyway, as it turns out Elizabeth I introduced Reformation theology to the Anglican church.  But it would still be a helpful distinction to use the word Anglican when speaking of Anglicans.  Knowing whether the people involved were Anglicans or Presbyterians is sometimes important. Philgoetz (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true to a degree, but the term Anglican was not used in the seventeenth century, as far as I'm aware. Also, members of the Church of England (and Ireland) who were Anglicans in our terminology, did recognise Presbyterians, members of the Church of Scotland, as fellow 'Protestants' and vice versa, despite some theological and political differences between them. Jdorney (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the context of the Confederate Wars it rarely mattered whether Presbyterians or Anglicans were being discussed. Both considered themselves, and the other, as "protestants". FOARP (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestants? 

message: Surely the Papal States should be listed as suppporters in the Second Phase? Cardinal Giovanni Battista Rinuccini literally brought arms and money to support the venture from Rome and controlled which specific faction he gave these arms to. The Papal States involvement in Phase II of the conflict is roughly analagous to the English involement in Phase I (money and arms, not boots on the ground). Torchist (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal States