Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda
Comments
-
My understanding was that from the basis model of the medieval Church sanctioned rules, there had been a measure of deviated from that norm but not that much and there still were standards. From the 30 years war that was waging up to various early 20th century conferences there was an expectation that civilians were not legitimate targets. From the 30Y example, the destruction of Madgeburg by the Imperial side was condemned throughout Europe for the high civilian causalities.
In terms of laws of war(source: Lincoln's Code by Witt ), the common framework for military engagement was set during the 17th by Grotios. This was expaned futher during the enlightenment and in conferences in the Hague/St.Petersburg to further restrain war violations against civilians. But as Snickers Man points out, larger powers wished to incorporate rules that would allow them to terrorise the enemy with mass destruction, in the name of the humanitarian goal of "prevent further slaughter later " Both Prussia and unfortunately the US (rising powers facing enemies) voted to retain for instance Gas and Aerial bombardment of civilian areas. I'd not divert in the US model of dealing with Indian population during the 19thC.
Hence the deliberate targeting of civilians and their infrastructure has been a constant issue in how wars are fought, to subjectate the
native population which ironically usually results in disproportionate cycle of violence.0 -
Ozymandiaz wrote: »Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.
For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.
So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.
Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.
Drogheda was a military garrison, most killed were English military families who were Royalists and soldiers of the Royalist side, ie the household cavalry.
Irish at that time lived outside towns.
Cromwell's history in Ireland has been distorted by not being written by objective sources.0 -
Perhaps you might care to explain why most of that era's walled towns - even Bandon, that most Protestant of enclaves - had districts known as 'Irishtown'?cruasder777 wrote: »
Irish at that time lived outside towns.
Cromwell's history in Ireland has been distorted by not being written by objective sources.
Sources are just that, it is what happens to them afterwards that affects objectivity.0 -
Ozymandiaz wrote: »Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.
For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.
So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.
Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.cruasder777 wrote: »Drogheda was a military garrison, most killed were English military families who were Royalists and soldiers of the Royalist side, ie the household cavalry.
Irish at that time lived outside towns.
Cromwell's history in Ireland has been distorted by not being written by objective sources.
Well said, that man.
Other factors mitigating against a wholesale civilian massacre lie in the composition of the civilian population. It has been established that in 1641 there were approximately 3,000 living souls in the town. (Garrett, Meave unpublished thesis 'Municipal and Central Government in Ireland under Charles II,' 1972). The conspiracy of the natives (mentioned above) to let the Roundheads in to the town proves that some of the townspeople at least supported the attackers. It's impossible to say how many of Drogheda's civilians were on Cromwell's side. Perhaps it was a small minority. The number of active conspirators who were banished was no doubt small but we'll never know the real number. We do know that the majority of the population were Old English Catholics who were loyal to whatever London government was in place. But this was not a battle between Catholic and Protestant, it was between royalist and parliamentarian.
On the ground, during the 1640s the town was submissive to whatever government faction held sway at Millmount (the defensive bulwark of the town) at any given time, either royalist or parliamentarian. Both had garrisons ensconced in the town at different times. Indeed, it was parliamentarian soldiers who lived peacefully among the townspeople for two long years before the siege (June 1647 - July 1649) and it would be parliamentarian soldiers who would later be accused of committing atrocities on these same townsfolk. Evidence exists that even suggests that members of the regiment of Colonel Michael Jones had lived in the town for those two years and then they became part of Cromwell's attacking army - attacking the royalist garrison.
How, (or why would he even want to when his orders explicitly forbade it) would a highly disciplined attacking roundhead soldier be able to discriminate between a royalist sympathiser and a parliamentarian sympathiser in the tumult of a storm, with a view to killing them in cold blood?
And why would that same soldier just run amok killing babies, children, their mothers and unarmed fathers, in a town that had kept the native Irish at bay in 1641 and was loyal to parliament when it was required to be? If he had done, he could expect certain death at the hands of his commanding officer, who's documented utterances throughout his entire campaign in Ireland was respectful to the ordinary Irish civilian folk - and who's orders to his troops were to exclude them from 'wrong or violence' on pain of death.
Just a couple of questions - I'm sure somebody will have answers to them...
And just in case anybody asserts that the roundheads simply lost control and Cromwell just ignored this - you'll need to do better than claim that this is the verdict of history and it has to be the case. Evidence is what's required here. Not speculation.
And there was an Irish Street in Drogheda...0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »I’m not sure that is what is being said.
I think it is very much what Aswaldo55, to whom I was replying, was saying. And as for Mr Cromwell's opinion on the matter, I am sure you have seen this famous quotation, taken from a letter of his reporting back to England on the massacre of the Drogheda garrison. (emphasis is mine)
"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"
[0 -
Wednesday 27 August 2014: Tom Reilly (That's me) talks to Matt Cooper on Today FM about Cromwell at 6.40pm approximately this evening.0
-
Snickers Man wrote: »I think it is very much what Aswaldo55, to whom I was replying, was saying. And as for Mr Cromwell's opinion on the matter, I am sure you have seen this famous quotation, taken from a letter of his reporting back to England on the massacre of the Drogheda garrison. (emphasis is mine)
"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"
[
As it happens historians including Prof John Morrill (Age of Atrocity, Drogheda Massacre in Cromwellian Context, Four Courts Press, 2010.) and Prof Ronald Hutton, (Cromwell in Ireland RTE documentary 2008) as well as many 19th century historians, have suggested that Cromwell was talking here about English royalists who had returned the country (England) to war in 1648 (The Second Civil War)and NOT the Irish. He had already used the same expression on English soil during the Civil War about English royalists.
It's a matter of interpretation.
Just saying.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Perhaps you might care to explain why most of that era's walled towns - even Bandon, that most Protestant of enclaves - had districts known as 'Irishtown'?
Sources are just that, it is what happens to them afterwards that affects objectivity.
That's the whole point numerous Irish towns have "Irish town" districts outside the centre/city walls, not in the centre.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I think it is very much what Aswaldo55, to whom I was replying, was saying. And as for Mr Cromwell's opinion on the matter, I am sure you have seen this famous quotation, taken from a letter of his reporting back to England on the massacre of the Drogheda garrison. (emphasis is mine)
"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"
[
The following is an excerpt from John Morrill's article in Age of Atrocity referenced above:
Cromwell was not amongst the most anti-Catholic and probably not amongst the most anti-Irish of Englishmen in the 1640s and 1650s. He was anti-Catholic and anti-Irish but he
was no less so than many of those he served alongside in thearmy and the Long Parliament…Cromwell’s letters and speeches are surprisingly short of strong anti-Catholic rhetoric. He does not make the same intimate connection between Laudian bishops and Popery that one finds in Pym or Prynne, for example…No Catholic priest in England was tried and executed while he was Lord Protector…His speeches as Lord Protector were equally silent on the special culpability of the Catholics…All laws penalising Catholics for absenting themselves from Protestant worship were repealed, and penalties for attending Catholic worship largely
unenforced…He was friends with all those “with the root of the matter in them” all who were seekers after God’s truth, for he did not believe that any one church had a monopoly of
truth, though we cannot find any sign that he found the root of the matter in any Catholic. But persecution was not a route to conversion. Cromwell himself would give liberty to
evangelise to all those who sought truth through the sovereign authority of Scripture, and he would give a de facto liberty to practice any other form in private.
But what of the chilling phrase ‘this is a righteous judgement of God upon those barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands with so much innocent blood?’ It has generally
been assumed by all who have written about it that it referred to the 1641 massacres, and that it has often enough been said that he knew he was lying – that he knew perfectly well that the garrison consisted of English and Ormondist troops, none of whom could have taken part in the 1641-2 massacres. Drogheda had never been a confederate town. So why do we
assume that he was referring to the 1641 rebellion? In the course of his post-Drogheda letters Cromwell only mentions by name English officers and members of Irish noble families.
In that list of those killed, he privileges the names of English officers along with those from Irish noble families – the Earl of Westmeath and Sir James Dillon, brother of the Earl of
Roscommon. Is it not possible that Cromwell’s reference is to the blood guilt of those who refused to accept the judgement of God in the first Civil War, those who committed sacrilege
by renewing the war and carried a culpability far higher than that of those who fought to establish God’s judgement in that first war, the culpability for shedding innocent blood that
brought Charles I to the scaffold. It was a reference to that same rage which overtook him throughout 1648 and led to the summary trials and death sentences on the leaders after the
sieges and battles of Pembroke, Preston and Pontefract. It was a rage that had allowed him to refer to those English rebels who obstructed the Lord’s work as acting ‘barbarously’ so this
was not a term he held back to use on the Irish. Is this why the heads of the English officers like Sir Edmund Verney were sent to be put on spikes in Dublin? Is this why he singled out
English officers to be denied mercy at Gowran? And was the concern to highlight the English officers intended to send a clear message to royalists amongst the English readership of
the letter not to cross to Ireland to continue the struggle.
Just saying.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »I think it is very much what Aswaldo55, to whom I was replying, was saying. And as for Mr Cromwell's opinion on the matter, I am sure you have seen this famous quotation, taken from a letter of his reporting back to England on the massacre of the Drogheda garrison. (emphasis is mine)
"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"
[
That is meaningless in support of your argument because it is a post facto statement. It does not prove ‘mens rea’ when one refers to all the evidence, drawing whatever inferences from it as appear proper in the circumstances. To uphold your argument you would have to show if, before the event took place, Cromwell intended the slaughter of civilians. None of his actions at this or other events show that this was one of his stock tactics.
I’m not suggesting that Ollie was a charming guy, or that I agree with Tom Reilly, I’m just trying to correctly lay out the facts.0 -
I read English History and I can't understand it. I liken Cromwell to Churchill, a villain and thug with ambitions that could be used for any purpose and hard to get rid of later when done and exposed for the criminals they really were.
IMO. Of course.0 -
OK. Talking at cross purposes here I think.
My point was to criticise the justification of massacre as a potential means to reduce bloodshed in the long run. I pointed out that this argument has been made before and since Cromwell's time and that it is ALWAYS bunk.
One poster suggested that such a calculation had not entered Cromwell's mind. I produced a famous quote from the man himself which rather suggested that it had, at least retrospectively.
And then off we go on a meander that Cromwell really had it in for his English enemies far more than the Irish. So he was all right then?
All wars throw up strange bedfellows. Cromwell had both English enemies and Irish allies. Is this a revelation to anybody here?
Is it a mitigation of Cromwell's ruthlessness that many of the people massacred at Drogheda were English? What does that prove? That he was an early version of an "equal opportunities" slaughterer?
Man was a ****.
****ed up his own country. And ours. Even the English dug him up some years after his death and hung his skeleton in public.
You gotta love the English sometimes. :-)0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »You gotta love the English sometimes. :-)
Here like, this is Boards.ie, might be going a bit far there like. :pac:0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »That is meaningless in support of your argument because it is a post facto statement. It does not prove ‘mens rea’ when one refers to all the evidence, drawing whatever inferences from it as appear proper in the circumstances. To uphold your argument you would have to show if, before the event took place, Cromwell intended the slaughter of civilians. None of his actions at this or other events show that this was one of his stock tactics.
Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population? No.
Still it is clear that Mr Cromwell saw the massacre of those he did massacre as justifiable on the grounds that it would reduce bloodshed in the long run. The evidence for that is of oral equine calibre.
What are you saying? "Most of the people he killed were English so that's all right then?"
He behaved barbarically, ruined this country and FAILED in his overall mission because the people who benefited in the long run were the very English he most despised, the Anglo Catholics. These formed the Ascendancy who ruled Britain and Ireland exclusively for the next century or so, helpfully keeping out of parliament not only the Roman Catholics for whom the compulsory Oath of Supremacy was impossible because its placing of the Monarch as head of the church undermined the Pope, but his own Non Conformist and Presbyterian brethern who refused to believe that the church needed an earthly head in the first place.
A massacrist and a failure. Shame there wasn't a hell for him to go to.0 -
cruasder777 wrote: »That's the whole point numerous Irish towns have "Irish town" districts outside the centre/city walls, not in the centre.
From here and it should be noted that Bandon was a special case as it was a 'new' town and had a ban on Catholics written into its charter by Boyle.The ‘census’ of 1659 recorded a population of 846 at Bandon Bridge, 542 English and 304 Irish. The Irish were presumably Catholics, a proof that Boyle’s ban on ‘popish recusants’ was less effective than had been claimed. These people probably occupied back houses and cabins in various messuages or tenements of the walled town, for head tenants were rarely mentioned in early rent roles relating to this area. There were also 113 residents (40 English and 73 Irish) outside the walls in Irishtown and 118 (47 English and 71 Irish) in East Gully. The recorded total was therefore 1077 with 629 English and 448 Irish. Apply a multiplier of three and the population of Bandon and Irishtown was 3231
and
(from WHITELOCK, Memorials of the English Affairs printed in 1682. Page 450 )...............Next day they marched on Kilkenny and there was skirmishing by both sides to improve their positions. While the English forces were withdrawing under pressure on one side, their other party took that part of the city known as Irishtown....
The real attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to keep the Irish out of towns surely came with the Penal Laws?0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population? No.
Still it is clear that Mr Cromwell saw the massacre of those he did massacre as justifiable on the grounds that it would reduce bloodshed in the long run. The evidence for that is of oral equine calibre.
What are you saying? "Most of the people he killed were English so that's all right then?"
He behaved barbarically, ruined this country and FAILED in his overall mission because the people who benefited in the long run were the very English he most despised, the Anglo Catholics. These formed the Ascendancy who ruled Britain and Ireland exclusively for the next century or so, helpfully keeping out of parliament not only the Roman Catholics for whom the compulsory Oath of Supremacy was impossible because its placing of the Monarch as head of the church undermined the Pope, but his own Non Conformist and Presbyterian brethern who refused to believe that the church needed an earthly head in the first place.
A massacrist and a failure. Shame there wasn't a hell for him to go to.
If you read my earlier posts Here and Here and Here you will see that we are more or less in agreement. However, I do not accept the bit in bold above. Ormonde for e.g. was not a Catholic.
The treatment of Catholics in Ireland and in England by Cromwell was totally different. He was a ruthlessly efficient commander and ruled with an iron fist e.g. at Gowran as quoted in Whitelocke “the common soldiers (that they might have quarter for themselves) delivered up their officers, viz. Col. Hamson, Major Townly, two Captains, one quartermaster, one lieutenant and a priest.” The officers were shot and the priest hanged. Cromwell also was very aware of what a winter in Ireland meant – it cost him his son-in-law - and it is clear that this influenced his tactics.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »The real attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to keep the Irish out of towns surely came with the Penal Laws?
Is that because all Irish are Catholics and all Catholics are Irish?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Is that because all Irish are Catholics and all Catholics are Irish?
If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.0 -
IMO the Mod’s link is not relevant as we are discussing an earlier period in history.
The simple answer to FF’s question is ‘not really’ but it is far more complicated than that. Under English rule up to James I religion invariably took second place to politics* and it could be argued that timeframe could be extended considerably.
After 1641 the key issue was subjugation of the ‘rebellious Irish’ many of whose leaders coincidentally happened to be Roman Catholic. The main purpose of the Cromwellian Settlement and later Penal Laws was to break the power of the Royalist landlords rather than to persecute Catholics in general. Cromwell’s big issue with the English Catholics was fear of ‘Popish’ influence on his Protectorate/leadership ; he was prepared to let English Catholics practice in private and even sent an envoy to Rome to negotiate this on the basis that the Pope would keep his nose out of English/Irish affairs. Rome was up to its neck in Irish affairs and played important military and diplomatic roles, with Rinuccini a key player.
*There was an Act of Uniformity in 1560 compelling attendance at the Established Church, but that was not effectively enforced and generally ignored, unless it was politically motivated to get at a Catholic.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.
Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.
I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population?
Horray! Well, we finally got there. Collateral damage. No massacre of the entire population. Why is it so hard to agree with me? Naïve? What on earth is that about?!
Collateral damage. That's exactly where I am. Civilians clearly died at Drogheda. Some are even named (Geraldine Tallon, Ed. The Court of Claims, Submissions and Evidence, 1663, 2006) - who of course could have been armed. But I believe any unarmed inhabitants that died died as a result of collateral damage.
So it wasn't the entire population then? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're down to numbers. How many? What does collateral damage mean?
There are two main scenarios as far as I can see here.
1. Somebody peeps around a corner and gets hit by a bullet. A woman, a child, a man...
Numbers here would be small.
2. The out-of-control attacking soldiers just killed any living soul that got in their way and some happened to be civilians (including the old, the infirm, boys, girls, children and babies?) Morrill suggests 700-800 dead civilians. I disagree. Vehemently.
How many? This is the bone of contention now.
Personally, I don't believe there was a policy to kill the innocent and I think a handful of people might have died by accident. I think the evidence from 1649 in this regard is overwhelming. No question.
Was there a deliberate massacre of ANY unarmed civilians? (Numbers to be confirmed.)
That is THE question. Deliberate or accidental deaths. Now, what about the numbers.
How many dead unarmed, innocent, ordinary, going-about-their-daily-business, labourers, tailors, shopkeepers, servants, goat herders, tinkers, tailors, candlestickmakers, shoppers, commuters, pedestrians, onlookers, what ever your having yourselfs are we talking about here?
How many? How many?
Ozymandiaz - where are you when I need you???0 -
-
pedroeibar1 wrote: »However, I do not accept the bit in bold above. Ormonde for e.g. was not a Catholic.
I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.
When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church, or the Church of England (and its offshoot the Church of Ireland). This is a usage still used in England to differentiate Anglo Catholics (Anglicans) from Roman Catholics (or those loyal to the Pope)
This was down to the peculiar nature of Protestantism in England and how it developed after Henry VIII's break with Rome.
Henry didn't change any part of the doctrine of the Church of England to differentiate it from Rome. All he did was declare a sort of UDI from Rome and the Vatican. Strictly, Henry wasn't a Protestant at all; he was a Pope. Albeit one whose influence was restricted to his own jurisdiction. There were a few doctrinal changes in the years following his death: allowing the use of the vernacular in services and rejecting the concept of transubstantiation, for example.
But crucially, the Church of England kept its hierarchy, its structure of bishops and Archbishops with the ruling Monarch at its head. This entire concept was distrusted, to the point of hatred, by the Puritans and Presbyterians, true protestants in the sense that they rejected the need for a church hierarchy on earth preferring instead to trust in their own personal interpretation of the Bible as being the only route needed for the faithful to find God.
When the Puritans used the pejorative term "Papist" they frequently meant High Anglicans or those particularly loyal to the Church hierarchy. This was one of the points distinguishing Tories (High Church Anglicans) from Whigs (other "Bible" protestant congregations) in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The point I was making about Cromwell is that ultimately, by which I mean only about 30 years after his death, the main beneficiary in Ireland of his conquest and the later Williamite one was the Anglican Ascendancy. His most immediate enemies. To sit in Parliament one had to take the Oath of Supremacy, which not only kept out Roman Catholics (the majority of the population) it also kept out the true Protestants, the Dissenters or Presbyterians such as those who had largely colonised the North of Ireland.
It was little wonder that the United Irishmen found such a ready audience among the presbyterians of Ulster in the 1790s.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.
When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church,
Ok, gotcha. Agreed (and I should have been more careful in jumping to an interpretation.):)0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.pedroeibar1 wrote: »IMO the Mod’s link is not relevant as we are discussing an earlier period in history.Fratton Fred wrote: »Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.
I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.
Just to clarify My tongue was firmly in my cheek. I didn't either think that Fred really believed literally what he stated! :rolleyes:0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.
When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church, or the Church of England (and its offshoot the Church of Ireland). This is a usage still used in England to differentiate Anglo Catholics (Anglicans) from Roman Catholics (or those loyal to the Pope)
The CofE today is loosely split in to low and high church, with the high church being considered Anglo Catholic. It is more traditional, uses incense and has a more traditional view on women being ordained etc.
The low churches would vary from a straight forward type church, similar to the CofI through to ones where the vicars wear polo shirts and chinos and the church organ is made by Yamaha and is accompanied by a guitar and saxophone.
They would all have the same reporting structure though, which is where the fun and games sets in.0 -
From the diary of Samuel Pepys
Entry :4th Oct 1660
I and Lieut Lambert to Westminster Abbey, ........Here I saw the Bishops of Winchester, Bangor, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Salisbury, all in their habits, in King Henry Seventh’s chapel. But, Lord at their going out, how people did most of them look upon them as strange creatures, and few with any kind of love or respect.
All High Church men, so the flock had yet to grow appreciative or even leave the 'old' aside.0 -
Tom Reilly wrote: »Horray! Well, we finally got there. Collateral damage. No massacre of the entire population. ......
Collateral damage. That's exactly where I am. Civilians clearly died at Drogheda. ........ But I believe any unarmed inhabitants that died died as a result of collateral damage.
So it wasn't the entire population then? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're down to numbers. How many? What does collateral damage mean?
.......
2. The out-of-control attacking soldiers just killed any living soul that got in their way and some happened to be civilians (including the old, the infirm, boys, girls, children and babies?) Morrill suggests 700-800 dead civilians. I disagree. Vehemently.
.......
Personally, I don't believe there was a policy to kill the innocent and I think a handful of people might have died by accident.
Was there a deliberate massacre of ANY unarmed civilians? (Numbers to be confirmed.)
That is THE question. ......
How many? How many?
That's your point??? Cromwell gave no written orders to massacre civilians or if he did none survive?
Therefore there was no deliberate killing of civilians and the numbers who did die have been greatly exaggerated. Therefore Cromwell's name has been blackened and it's about time the record was set straight?
That's what you've written two books to try and achieve????
Your implication is that it was OK to massacre prisoners, which there is not the slightest doubt Cromwell did do at Drogheda.
Now you might say that he was justified in doing this by the generally accepted rules pertaining at the time. Having summoned the garrison to surrender and having been told to get lost, he was not obliged to spare them once he was victorious.
This is partly true but as has always been the case in military history, it's a grey area. Even in medieval times it was considered sinful to indulge in slaughter of surrendered troops. King Henry V massacred a lot of prisoners at Agincourt. All contemporary accounts mention it.
But the great hagiographer of the Tudor dynsasty, William Shakespeare, left it out of his play on the subject. Why? If it was justified. Surely a "righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches" was worthy of a mention in the biodrama of Tudor England's exemplary hero?
Maybe it was just bad PR.
Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers, many of whom had laid down their arms on the promise that their lives would be spared. There is no doubt that he did this (he admits to it in writing) nor that he justified it, at least partly, on the grounds that it would save lives in the future.
Even if there were no civilian casualties in Drogheda, and even you concede that there were, he deserves to be reviled for what he did there. And has also been pointed out by Arsemageddon, Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is not based solely on what happened at Drogheda (or indeed Wexford), it's based on the bloody awful mess he and his subordinates made of the place, the fallout from which we are still living with to this day.
And as the same poster said:Arsemageddon wrote:
I don't know of any serious modern historian who claims that the entire population of the town were put to the sword or even that the civilians of Drogheda were the main victims of the massacre. ....You seem to be fixated on rebutting an over-the-top 19th century claim that no one with a basic knowledge of Irish history takes seriously.
Quite.0 -
" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"
.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.
Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.0 -
cruasder777 wrote: »" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"
.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.
Yes. But many at Drogheda were slaughtered AFTER they had been led to believe their lives were spared. Even Tom Reilly admits that Cromwell was "treacherous" in his dealings with the Drogheda prisonerscruasder777 wrote: »Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.
Mercy? They were as good as slaves. There was a program about their descendents, the Red Legs of Barbados, on TG4 a couple of nights ago. They are still the bottom of the social pile in Barbados.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »That's your point??? Cromwell gave no written orders to massacre civilians or if he did none survive?
Nope. Do you seriously think that anyone with half a brain would consider that a commander would issue written orders to kill unarmed civilians?Snickers Man wrote: »Therefore there was no deliberate killing of civilians and the numbers who did die have been greatly exaggerated. Therefore Cromwell's name has been blackened and it's about time the record was set straight?
Yep.Snickers Man wrote: »That's what you've written two books to try and achieve????
Yep.Snickers Man wrote: »Your implication is that it was OK to massacre prisoners, which there is not the slightest doubt Cromwell did do at Drogheda.
You're way off beam there. I have no idea where you got that impression. In actual fact, personally, I am convinced that Cromwell breached military convention at Drogheda. But I'm not an expert in the rules of seventeenth century warfare. But I couldn't really give a monkey's about that. It's an irrelevance in my continued defence of Cromwell and the accusation that he murdered the ordinary people of Drogheda and Wexford.
My issue is with a deliberate large scale civilian massacre - widows, pensioners, teenagers, children etc. And if you're up to date with the latest research on the subject, in particular Mr Ó'Siochrú's tome, God's Executioner, the foremost Irish expert in the period, you will be aware that he promotes the notion of a large scale civilian massacre. But he is coy about a total number. I'm not being facetious by trying to determine an exact figure. That's just stupid. What I'm saying is that the civilian inhabitants were left unmolested at Drogheda and there was no massacre of innocents on any scale. Some locals may have gotten caught in the crossfire. But here in 2014 Cromwell is still being accused of genocide at Drogheda and Wexford. Ask any Irish person and they'll tell you that this is the case. And worse of all - IT'S STILL BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS TODAY THAT CROMWELL MASSACRED THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF DROGHEDA. The nonsense that Ó'Siochrú promotes does not help.0 -
Damn. That didn't work. How do you find out how to use this forum? Putting quotes in nice neat boxes, using italics...
Somebody?0 -
The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.Fratton Fred wrote: »Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.
I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.0 -
It was the was the norm of the time of the ideology known as Manifest Destiny which was the belief in the United States that white settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Naturally the US armed forces had to clear the way by slaughtering the native Americans but mercy was given to those who took the offer of surrender by ethnically cleansing them off to reservations where the white man didn't want the land. My point is, to reasonable opinion of today Manifest Destiny was no more moral than what happened in Ireland with Cromwell's campaign.cruasder777 wrote: »" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"
.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.
Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.
Oh shut up.0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.
Rambling post and the bitterness seeps through. What has 'an armed police force' or the Monarchy got to do with the topic under discussion? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you might consider the fact that in the late 1600's less than a quarter of the land remained in Irish Catholic hands. It follows that the worst affected by the Navigation and Wool Acts actually were the new Cromwellian settlers.............. Have you looked at information on smuggling? Or compared the increase in tonnage landed at French ports? (Nantes, for example).0 -
Nothing rambling whatsoever, just pointing out the obvious to unionists that the British could pass laws as they seen fit to apply Ireland regarding trade, police etc and if needed could have exempted Ireland from the Penal laws. The Penal laws effect on the Irish was very far from been " coincidental ".pedroeibar1 wrote: »Rambling post and the bitterness seeps through. What has 'an armed police force' or the Monarchy got to do with the topic under discussion? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you might consider the fact that in the late 1600's less than a quarter of the land remained in Irish Catholic hands. It follows that the worst affected by the Navigation and Wool Acts actually were the new Cromwellian settlers.............. Have you looked at information on smuggling? Or compared the increase in tonnage landed at French ports? (Nantes, for example).0 -
According to the English Parliament's own survey after the war, about 47.7% of the Irish population at the beginning of the war was gone. Most of those were killed during the war or executed or sent to English plantations in the West Indies as slaves immediately after. About 2.7% were Catholics who had fled to the Continent (mostly to France and Spain). Cromwell paid his debts, paid his army, and bolstered his power in England with gifts of land in conquered Ireland. Out of a total of 20 million acres in the survey, 11 million were confiscated. If you seriously expect people to swallow your line that 'honest Ollie' behaved like an impeccable gentleman at Drogheda and Wexford but allowed his army go on a genocidal rampage around the rest of the country, what next, the earth is flat.Tom Reilly wrote: »You're way off beam there. I have no idea where you got that impression. In actual fact, personally, I am convinced that Cromwell breached military convention at Drogheda. But I'm not an expert in the rules of seventeenth century warfare. But I couldn't really give a monkey's about that. It's an irrelevance in my continued defence of Cromwell and the accusation that he murdered the ordinary people of Drogheda and Wexford.
My issue is with a deliberate large scale civilian massacre - widows, pensioners, teenagers, children etc. And if you're up to date with the latest research on the subject, in particular Mr Ó'Siochrú's tome, God's Executioner, the foremost Irish expert in the period, you will be aware that he promotes the notion of a large scale civilian massacre. But he is coy about a total number. I'm not being facetious by trying to determine an exact figure. That's just stupid. What I'm saying is that the civilian inhabitants were left unmolested at Drogheda and there was no massacre of innocents on any scale. Some locals may have gotten caught in the crossfire. But here in 2014 Cromwell is still being accused of genocide at Drogheda and Wexford. Ask any Irish person and they'll tell you that this is the case. And worse of all - IT'S STILL BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS TODAY THAT CROMWELL MASSACRED THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF DROGHEDA. The nonsense that Ó'Siochrú promotes does not help.0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »According to the English Parliament's own survey after the war, about 47.7% of the Irish population at the beginning of the war was gone. Most of those were killed during the war or executed or sent to English plantations in the West Indies as slaves immediately after. About 2.7% were Catholics who had fled to the Continent (mostly to France and Spain). Cromwell paid his debts, paid his army, and bolstered his power in England with gifts of land in conquered Ireland. Out of a total of 20 million acres in the survey, 11 million were confiscated. If you seriously expect people to swallow your line that 'honest Ollie' behaved like an impeccable gentleman at Drogheda and Wexford but allowed his army go on a genocidal rampage around the rest of the country, what next, the earth is flat.
To whom it may concern.
At the risk of invoking the ire of the Moderator, following a despicable Private Message earlier today from this individual I have chosen not to engage with him.0 -
Advertisement
-
One of the aspects that should be considered in the context and atmosphere that Cromwell's campaign of genocide took place in and the gross lies and propaganda that fueled the mindset. It's an academic analysis by linguists and historians from Aberdeen University and Trinity Dublin, I rest my case -
"A two-day academic conference will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. "One of the iconic narratives that comes up in hearsay evidence is reports of atrocities against pregnant women who were said to have been ripped open, had their babies pulled out and beaten against rocks," said Dr Mark Sweetnam, who has been working on the texts.......These 'atrocities' were used by Cromwell to show how cruel, barbarous and alien the Irish were but it's based on highly unreliable evidence. Some of the atrocities, however, such as the drowning of as many as 100 Protestants at Portadown, were corroborated by eyewitness accounts. That barbarity is still depicted on Orange Order banners and loyalist murals in Northern Ireland."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda0 -
On looking at the Wikipedia pages concerning Cromwell and Drogheda I notice that quite a few of the references to the less flattering publications about him regarding this incident have been marked "Unreliable sources"
Anyone here have any idea as to who has been doing that?
Just asking
0 -
Tut tut, Snickers. Owning up to looking at Wiki, I'm surprised at you!0
-
ChicagoJoe wrote: »One of the aspects that should be considered in the context and atmosphere that Cromwell's campaign of genocide took place in and the gross lies and propaganda that fueled the mindset. It's an academic analysis by linguists and historians from Aberdeen University and Trinity Dublin, I rest my case -
"A two-day academic conference will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. "One of the iconic narratives that comes up in hearsay evidence is reports of atrocities against pregnant women who were said to have been ripped open, had their babies pulled out and beaten against rocks," said Dr Mark Sweetnam, who has been working on the texts.......These 'atrocities' were used by Cromwell to show how cruel, barbarous and alien the Irish were but it's based on highly unreliable evidence. Some of the atrocities, however, such as the drowning of as many as 100 Protestants at Portadown, were corroborated by eyewitness accounts. That barbarity is still depicted on Orange Order banners and loyalist murals in Northern Ireland."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda
If you had bothered to read earlier posts in this thread before posting – for example my comment in #28
- you might have a better idea of what is going on and instead of totally missing the point you might post something of merit.pedroeibar1 wrote: »The number of tracts, pamphlets and reports that emerged after the 1641 Depositions, all of which excoriated the ‘mere’ Irish (and Catholics in particular), were widely distributed, read and believed even by the educated Englishman. A typical title is "A Late and True Relation from Ireland of the Warlike and bloody Proceedings of the Rebellious Papists in that Kingdome from November 1 to this present" (1641, London). These set the scene for ‘Paddy bashing’ and the typical ignorance of the English of Irish events/ history. After all, Ireland had very nearly succeeded in overthrowing English rule, and that became a deciding factor in Cromwell’s outlook on and treatment of the powerful Irish Catholics. In England he was quite prepared to allow religious liberty and even sent an envoy to discuss this with Pope Alexander VII and ‘do a deal’ on private worship provided Rome did not preach against the Protectorate.
Nor is whatever case you are trying to make helped by name-calling (I am not a Unionist). Everyone - including schoolchildren - is fully aware of the exaggerated stories of the events of 1641 and the ‘Depositions’ always have been available to researchers and are online for four years, so you are hardly breaking new ground by referring to a dated newspaper article hyping a conference.
The issue is that some folk – like you - want to believe the fairytales spun by the propagandists of the 19th & 20th centuries. That is the cr@p that gets in the way of history and detracting from real debate with Tom Reilly.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Tut tut, Snickers. Owning up to looking at Wiki, I'm surprised at you!
It's not Gospel. But it's a good place to start researching something. And it's usually the references that are most useful. I just happened to notice that several of the references linked to on the Cromwell page have been marked (by someone) as "Unreliable Sources".
Don't tell me you shun Wikipedia completely. Don't believe you:D0 -
Tom Reilly wrote: »To whom it may concern.
At the risk of invoking the ire of the Moderator, following a despicable Private Message earlier today from this individual I have chosen not to engage with him.
Hello Tom,
Please forward the PM you received from ChicagoJoe. I cannot deal with it if I do not see it. Forward it by PM also.
Moderator.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Yes. But many at Drogheda were slaughtered AFTER they had been led to believe their lives were spared. Even Tom Reilly admits that Cromwell was "treacherous" in his dealings with the Drogheda prisoners
Mercy? They were as good as slaves. There was a program about their descendents, the Red Legs of Barbados, on TG4 a couple of nights ago. They are still the bottom of the social pile in Barbados.
No different to what happened to English Royalist prisoners in the English civil war. Either was the siege of Drogheda, numerous English towns met the same fate. Colchester's seige was particularly savage.0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »According to the English Parliament's own survey after the war, about 47.7% of the Irish population at the beginning of the war was gone. Most of those were killed during the war or executed or sent to English plantations in the West Indies as slaves immediately after. About 2.7% were Catholics who had fled to the Continent (mostly to France and Spain). Cromwell paid his debts, paid his army, and bolstered his power in England with gifts of land in conquered Ireland. Out of a total of 20 million acres in the survey, 11 million were confiscated. If you seriously expect people to swallow your line that 'honest Ollie' behaved like an impeccable gentleman at Drogheda and Wexford but allowed his army go on a genocidal rampage around the rest of the country, what next, the earth is flat.
Yes from disease and famine, same level of drop in England, half of Cromwell's troops also died from the same causes. The same story in all civil wars in Europe at that time.
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html
The problem is the version of Cromwell in Ireland as taught was invented by a Victorian Catholic priest called Murphy In the 19th century, none of it is objective, it was then used a propaganda for independence by nationalists and to justify independence. To this day the myths are still taught.0 -
cruasder777 wrote: »Yes from disease and famine, same level of drop in England, half of Cromwell's troops also died from the same causes. The same story in all civil wars in Europe at that time.
The problem is the version of Cromwell in Ireland as taught was invented by a Victorian Catholic priest called Murphy In the 19th century, none of it is objective, it was then used a propaganda for independence by nationalists and to justify independence. To this day the myths are still taught.
It's so refreshing to see an opinion like this in an otherwise torrent of predictability. Judging by some of the comments on here, and indeed elsewhere, this attitude will take another three and a half centuries to prevail in Ireland. But prevail it will. Because it's the only conclusion that is completely supported by all of the evidence.
Cromwell didn't murder the ordinary unarmed, common people of Ireland while he was here. That's all I'm saying. End of.
The blind spot here is of course the Cromwellian Plantation, people just can't get past it. Bastards. Coming over here, taking our land...
I have not written anything about this period (post 1649) because it was not my focus. My work concentrates on 1649. The aftermath of Drogheda and Wexford (1650-1660) and the Interregnum does not influence my thesis in any way whatsoever.
We can't judge the seventeenth century with modern day values and standards. Different time. Different place. Different planet.0 -
Yes I have read your post but I wasn’t under the impression that you were the only one who could mention the issue of the Depositions as if there is some sort of protocol or rule that states you can only bring them up.pedroeibar1 wrote: »If you had bothered to read earlier posts in this thread before posting – for example my comment in #28
Your own skewered views can be seen by the fact that you both ignore the elephants in the room on the thread with unionist claims of utter thrash like that the Penal laws were “coincidental” and typical sectarian conspiracy theories of “the version of Cromwell in Ireland……Catholic priest called Murphy”. Instead of lecturing me or others you'd do better spending your time debunking unionist fairytales spun by their propagandists of the 19th & 20th centuries.you might have a better idea of what is going on and instead of totally missing the point you might post something of merit.
Nor is whatever case you are trying to make helped by name-calling (I am not a Unionist). Everyone - including schoolchildren - is fully aware of the exaggerated stories of the events of 1641 and the ‘Depositions’ always have been available to researchers and are online for four years, so you are hardly breaking new ground by referring to a dated newspaper article hyping a conference.
The issue is that some folk – like you - want to believe the fairytales spun by the propagandists of the 19th & 20th centuries. That is the cr@p that gets in the way of history and detracting from real debate with Tom Reilly.0 -
Your link says nothing about half of Cromwell’s troops dying - in fact it’s says nothing whatsoever about Cromwell !!! Besides I stated “about 47.7% of the Irish population was gone – we are talking about mostly completely innocent Irish civilians, not soldiers involved in the war.cruasder777 wrote: »Yes from disease and famine, same level of drop in England, half of Cromwell's troops also died from the same causes. The same story in all civil wars in Europe at that time.
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html
Yep, definetly one of our orange friends all right, the mask always slips, the Catholic church are always dragged into it and blamed as the root of all evil, all down to a single priest called Murphy at that !!!! We’d be living in a right little utopia if it wasn’t for Fr Murphy wouldn’t it, just so long as the RCs knew their place in that utopia of course !!!!The problem is the version of Cromwell in Ireland as taught was invented by a Victorian Catholic priest called Murphy In the 19th century, none of it is objective, it was then used a propaganda for independence by nationalists and to justify independence. To this day the myths are still taught.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement