[MarchDub]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

The Link to the article was just to demonstrate what I had stated, that there were people pro and anti-Hart (he refers to Foster still supporting Harts theme in 2009). I linked Meehan previously and he decimates Harts version of events quite convincingly.

I know you had given the link previously but did not understand the point you were making because apart from his own points Meehan demonstrates quite well why Foster and others might have clung to Hart without looking closely at the quality of Hart's work at all.

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by MarchDub

I know you had given the link previously but did not understand the point you were making because apart from his own points Meehan demonstrates quite well why Foster and others might have clung to Hart without looking closely at the quality of Hart's work at all.

Meehan breaks it down very well and his view is agreeable to me because of this, As does Seamus Fox also.

posted by Bannasidhe

Just saw this comment jonnie - personally, I was one of those who was highly critical of Hart and it had absolutely nothing to do with how critical he was of 'patriots' but because he did not meet the evidentiary requirements necessary for a scholarly work of history. If the evidence he based his conclusions on was solid - why did his not reveal his sources?

..

This was why Hart was 'vilified' - not because of what he said, but because he made controversial statements and when asked to provide his sources (which he should have done automatically) he became vague and claimed to be protecting his sources - that is journalism, not history.

I agree with this and you explain it clearly. It is reinforced moreso when his research is shown as not being as thorough as it might have been, in the case of Tom Barry's Irish times interview of 1932.

[garbanzo]

100th anniversary of this is today.

[whisky_galore]

Regarding the site itself, so much has been altered, bulldozed and landscaped around it over the years that it is valueless from the pov of carrying out battlefield archaeological work which may help shed more light on events.

https://www.historyireland.com/volum...sy-kilmichael/

[Stovepipe]

It'd be beyond a miracle to find any physical evidence of the ambush, these days. It's not as if they dug trenches or built fortifications or left thousands of empty shell cases behind.

[Stovepipe]

@bannasidhe, genuine question, but what are "evidentiary requirements for a scholarly work of history"? How deep does a writer have to go?

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

It'd be beyond a miracle to find any physical evidence of the ambush, these days. It's not as if they dug trenches or built fortifications or left thousands of empty shell cases behind.

I know you're being facetious; bullets, bullet fragments and casings would have been still there if left undisturbed. I can't see any good reason for excessive landscaping.
It's a miracle someone hasn't built the obligatory "interpretive centre" there.

[V8 Interceptor]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

There has been controversy in recent years leading on from Peter Hart's book "The I.R.A. and its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923". As time goes by peoples views change on historical event yet there was a hostile reaction to Harts questioning of events, including Kilmicheal.

I would be interested in what people think of Harts questioning of the events at Kilmicheal and further afield?

Hart claimed to have talked to the dead in getting his information.

[V8 Interceptor]

Originally Posted by R.Dub.Fusilier

if you are asking me if there was a false surrender ? my answer would be that i don't care if there was or not as the B&Ts got the same treatment that they gave out. if it was an ordinary british army regiment who were ambushed i would have some sympathy for those killed.

Barry himself said the Essex regiment were worse than the B&T's/Auxies.