Talk:Manus O'Cahan's Regiment

Formating and Layout

I've asked the original article creator to take a look at breaking the paragraph text down into more sensible chunks, on the grounds that he should no roughly where they need to be. I've already made a start on wikifying the links for him. --Hikari 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Hikari. Advice taken - much appreciated (User:arthurchappell

Page needs work

Firstly, well done to the creator[s] of this page. However, some serious work needs to be done on it.

Firstly, the title should be changed, O'Cahan's men fought in the Scottish Civil War and never set foot in England. They participated in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms but not the English Civil War. In fact the article as a whole needs to be linked to these pages.

Secondly, the origins of O'Cahan's fighters seems to have been missed. This was a regiment raised by the Irish Catholic Catholic Confedeation, which ruled most of the country from Kilkenny during the civil wars. It was sent to Scotland as part of a deal agreed between the Confederate's Supreme Council, Randal MacDonnell (Earl of Antrim) and the Royalist James Butler, Earl of Ormonde, who was Charles I's representative in Ireland. Thy were not mercenaries or gallowglass.

There are also a few more minor changes I would like to see made. I'll be back to this article later.

Jdorney 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jdorney - As you can see I now mention more of the regiment origins. Several historians refer to them as Gallowglasses. There certainly were soldiers of fortune among them. I have used English Civil War from its familier usage but I shall emphasise its controversy. I have added details of the voyage from Ulster too. User:arthurchappell

There's quite a few red links on the page still, some of which are down to incorrect linking (a couple of which I've corrected) but the others could do with being created. There's not an excessive number of red links, but there's enough for them to stand out; especially as some of them are terms which could do with being explained, such as Gallowglass and Irish Charge. I'm sure there must be a page on the Covenant that's suitable to be linked to as well.--Hikari 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I have very rarly heard it called the war of the three kingdoms before, the English civil war is by far the commonest term. Secondly divisions were not used by any army ( as far as I know ) until at least a century later ). Finally this reads a little like POV by a descendent. Perhaps soemone else can comment? 145.253.108.22 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Scots-Irish?

not really.... It now seems to means "Ulster Scots", Papist Scots no, Presbyterian yes, protestant Irish (Magennis, Mcusker) yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindred of St. Columba (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Irishry

I see this term used in the article, where does it come from, is it even a proper word? Should the word "Irish" not be used instead? Jaqian (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Still needs work

There is no citation of sources so all of the statements are presented as bold assertions rather than being linked to proper sources. Without sources, it comes across as new research which should be avoided. In particular, the interpretation of Auldearn is very different to the accepted accounts, but no sources are given to allow evaluation of this very different interpretation. The tone is also generally rather partisan and needs to be made more neutral. Iain1917 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Would concur with the above - lack of any in line citation seriously weakens the article. I've added a B class checklist. With some supporting materials, especially a map or two, it will make C class.Monstrelet (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Manus O'Cahan's Regiment. 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/20070130202242/http://www.scotwars.com/html/maccolla_intro.htm to http://www.scotwars.com/html/maccolla_intro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070130202231/http://www.scotwars.com/html/textonly/maccolla_song.htm to http://www.scotwars.com/html/textonly/maccolla_song.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070130202313/http://www.scotwars.com/html/montrose_bckgrd_overview.htm to http://www.scotwars.com/html/montrose_bckgrd_overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070130202302/http://www.scotwars.com/html/manus_ocahans_regiment.htm to http://www.scotwars.com/html/manus_ocahans_regiment.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

POV

I am not an uncritical admirer of Montrose, his reputation may well need a critical re-evaluation, but this article comes across as quite biased against him in places, at the very least it requires better sourcing. PatGallacher (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)