Clonmel’s defence suggests that tactical ingenuity could inflict serious losses on a superior besieging army, yet shortages of food and ammunition ultimately mattered more than the successful repulse of an assault. Waterford’s later surrender, shaped by isolation, blockade and plague, reinforces the article’s portrayal of conquest as a contest of logistics, health and political cohesion rather than battlefield strength alone. The contrast raises questions about how communities understood resistance when military success could coexist with strategic defeat. To what extent did decisions at Clonmel and Waterford reflect commanders’ calculations, civilian priorities, or the wider collapse of Catholic–royalist cooperation in 1650?