Talk:Nine Years' War (Ireland)

message: This article really needs a map, particularly when it comes to the fortification of Ulster and the routes into the province: Newry-Armagh, Sligo-Ballyshannon, Lough Foyle, the various crown garrisons, rebel strongholds, the forest of Glenconkyne, Lough Neagh, mountains, and the Scots connection across the channel. The map would also help with all the sub-articles. Is there anyone out there who could help me with all these squiggles and arrows? I am the untechnical shtove 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAP! 

message: Article would benefit from citations for a lot of the statements and assertions currently appearing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.253.157 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: Is this article a propaganda piece for English, and its surrogate British, nationalism? This article is supposed to be about resistance to the English conquest of Ireland between 1594 and 1603. How, pray tell, are the native Irish "rebels"? How are they "rebelling" against a people or a state that still has not conquered them? The English called them "rebels" because the English wanted to project themselves as the norm, as the established government, as the rightful rulers, of Ireland and Irish rule as an aberration on that. The truth was that it was the English who were rebelling against the norm, against the established governments, against the rightful rulers of Ireland. That is what the English conquest was: a rebellion against the established authority. It could not have been a conquest otherwise. This article is lazy, pro-English and anti-Irish in all its premises. Shamefully unintelligent. 86.42.91.234 (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rebels"?

message: I feel this article needs to say more about the English Soldiers who fought in the war. 
If I am not mistaken the nine years war was the largest war to be fought in the Tudor period (at one point 18,000 English soldiers were in Ireland) but excepting Cyril Falls and Morgan, few English historians have written about the soldiers who fought in the war; this article may be an opportunity to correct this bias.  Inchiquin (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Soldiers in the nine years war 

message: Thanks for the response to my previous query. I was wondering whether the number of civilians killed in the conflict would really have been as high as that stated. I've read in several places that the Irish population was about a million at this time so 100,000 seems to be a pretty high civilian death rate, especially if the mentioned famine only occurred in one province. Another related question is the issue of the population of Ulster at that time. I've heard it said from sources I would not consider reliable that the population of Ulster was much lower than that of the other provinces and was therefore 'underpopulated', as a kind of justification for the Plantation of Ulster. Although there may be some truth in that because of the famine that was instigated by the English Army I was wondering is there any evidence that the population of Ulster was historically less than the rest of Ireland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.76.203 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish civilian deaths  

message: Which is correct? Mooretwin (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine Years' War or Nine Years War 

message: The O'Neills were trying to restore their legitimate sovereign authority and the power of the True Church, contrary to heretical schism and monarchal usurpation. This must be viewed in a very different context to the later communist ("republican") pleb/middle-class rebellions which were allied to the naturalists and Grand Orient masons of France. This war was aristocratic, Catholic and supported by a masculine country of similar nature; Habsburg Spain. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree wholeheartedly about this being much more a counter-revolution than a 'rebellion'. Dunlavin Green (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points but the O'Neill clan itself had divided and Hugh was the creature of the English administration. The succession went: Conn), Shane d.1567 and Turlough Luineach who d.1595. Hugh was supposed to be Conn's grandson. Were it not for the English we would never have heard of him. He had a good run of luck before his rebellion came to an end, and cost the rest of Ireland very dear.86.46.230.150 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  But is it not assuming far too much to look at his choices through the prism of the (essentially modern) English nation state? In the Gaelic world alliances were viewed as short term rather than as some long-term commitment/contract between "subject" and "sovereign" as Tudor propaganda was intent upon portraying even the most ephemeral self-serving alliance with its aims. Ó Néill used the English connection to advance himself for sure, but to say that he owed some long-term loyalty to that connection is looking at things from a perspective which did not belong in the Gaelic world. It appears that many, many people are unable to see things in the reality of that world and are instead projecting an English worldview upon actions and motivations from the Gaelic world. 109.78.46.48 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More exactly the flashpoint was Henry Bagenal being appointed President of Ulster, as he and O'Neill hated each other.86.42.200.42 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-revolution, not a rebellion

message: As of right now there are 27 commanders listed in the infobox, and there are many more (with and without wikipedia articles) that could be listed. To avoid these large awkward lists in the infobox, I feel that a Nine Years' War equivalent to a "List of military leaders in the American Revolutionary War" type article would be a useful database to have. Given the smaller scale of the war it could incorporate clan chiefs, officials, Lord Deputies, Governors, etc. not just military leaders. At the very least a proper Nine Years' War infobox is required that lists people, battles and events. I will begin work on this to see if it's feasible. 
Also the article jumps from the outbreak of war in 1593 to Yellow Ford in 1598 in the space of a paragraph. There is a huge amount on O'Donnell's activity during these early war years contained within the articles - West Breifne and Tiobóid mac Walter Ciotach Bourke. These are obviously not the first places you'd think to look for this information so currently trying to figure out a way to more clearly link this information to O'Donnell and the Nine Years' War without making the latter articles repetitive and over encumbered with secondary information. --Jacobfrid (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders and early war years

message: Regarding the list of commanders and leaders, why us it not indicated those who were killed in action (KIA)? For example, Henry Bagenal on the English side and Fiach McHugh O'Byrne on the Irish side. There is usually a symbol beside their name showing they have been killed in action, am I wrong? Are these deaths exceptions for any reason? Iamdmonah (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders who were killed in action (KIA)