Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1641

Recent Edits
I've made a number of edits intended to make the article easier to follow eg simplify language (remove repetition, superfluous detail), more logical time flow, add Map, check and add references. I don't think they change the sense so I hope they're not controversial.

However, there are two specific statements where the current wording potentially impacts the balance of the article. In part, this is because the standalone quotes provided are selected from a much wider and more balanced discussion, but there are a also couple of unsourced additions.

(1) Historian Nicholas Canny writes, "most insurgents seemed anxious for a resolution of their immediate economic difficulties by seizing the property of any of the settlers. These popular attacks did not usually result in loss of life, nor was it the purpose of the insurgents to kill their victims. They nevertheless were gruesome affairs because they involved face to face confrontations between people who had long known each other. A typical attack involved a group of Irish descending upon a Protestant family and demanding, at knifepoint, that they surrender their moveable goods. Killings usually only occurred where Protestants resisted".


 * I'm not particularly woke but this reads like victim blaming ie you only got killed if you resisted having your stuff stolen. Today, losing your wallet, being evicted from your home or having your goods seized can be traumatic; in the depths of a 17th century winter, it could be a death sentence and inserting this sentence understates that reality. Modern estimates suggest that of the total 10,000 deaths that resulted from these actions, at least 50% were due to exposure or hunger after being driven from their homes.


 * I can live with Canny's claim that the initial motive behind these attacks was economic, rather than killing per se (although I think it misses the point above), so I have included words to that effect.

(2) ''Historian Nicholas Canny suggests that attacks on settlers escalated after a failed rebel assault on Lisnagarvey in November 1641, after which the settlers killed several hundred captured rebels. Canny writes, "the bloody-mindedness of the settlers in taking revenge when they gained the upper hand in battle seems to have made such a deep impression on the insurgents that, as one deponent put it, 'the slaughter of the English' could be dated from this encounter".''


 * After which the settlers killed several hundred captured rebels does not appear in Canny's account of this episode.


 * The bloody-mindedness of the settlers in taking revenge.... seems an odd choice of words for which Canny provides no evidence. Lacking heavy artillery, the rebels made a frontal assault on a well defended fort, lost 300-400 men, burned the surrounding town, then retreated. How does this equate to "The bloody-mindedness of the settlers in taking revenge"?


 * ...when they gained the upper hand in battle...In most 17th century battles, the losers suffered disproportionate casualties for a variety of reasons, regardless of who they were; on the same day, a Protestant force of nearly 600 was destroyed at Julianstown. Its not clear how the repulse at Lisnagarvey was any different from this event, nor how it relates to subsequent events


 * The deposition Canny refers to says After the fight & losse of the Irish at Lisnegarvy in december their followeing then began to murder the English every where in the Country & in Armagh also. Escalation (as Canny himself points out elsewhere) was a reaction to the fact of defeat, not its circumstances, because it became clear the easy victories of the first month were at an end. I've included wording to this effect. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)