Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Tom Reilly · 19-08-2014 2:40pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your making a lot of assumptions about me in that post. I was a bit harsh by calling your book poop, for that I apologise. However, I did buy your first book on Cromwell when it came out and I'm sorry to say I was very underwhelmed by the 'evidence' you presented.

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. Most accounts give a figure of 3500 killed within the town with between 500-700 being civilians. 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.

The claim that you can provide 'water tight' evidence to show that Cromwell was 'framed' (for what?) is interesting to say the least. The orders given to the army about protecting civilian life at the outset of the Irish campaign are all very well, but what actually happened during the campaign and in it's aftermath illustrate that these orders/intentions were quickly set aside/ignored when the campaign got under way. If your going to argue that there is no smoking gun that connects Cromwell to the massacre then there is no way I'm buying it. Cromwell was the army's commander, he was ultimately responsible for what they did. Actions speak louder than words.

Cromwell subsequently justified his actions by conflating the exaggerated but real massacres of Protestant settlers by Catholics with the Royalist garrison at Drogheda and then states that his actions there would terrify other towns into submission (which it did).

"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"

This is the kind of news-speak gobbledegook we got from Bush and Blair when they were justifying their actions in Iraq, or the stuff Putin comes out with when talking about Ukraine.

Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is not based solely on what happened at Drogheda (or indeed Wexford), it's based on the transplantation of 50,000 civilians to the Caribbean, the persecution of the Catholic population (especially the clergy) and the confiscation and redistribution of land. We are still dealing with the fallout from these actions 360 years later.

Apology accepted. I think I love you. Do you have any idea of the number of people who haven't reached - and will never reach - the place where you are now.

In 2004, Folens published Earthlink 5th Class. On page 87 the following words are printed: ‘Cromwell captured Drogheda. About 3,000 men, women and children were killed.’ The Educational Company of Ireland released Timeline in 2008. A paragraph on page 223 reads, ‘He [Cromwell] first laid siege to Drogheda. He was determined to make an example of the town. When he captured it he slaughtered the entire population.’ There is no ambiguity there.

Is it any wonder people are confused?

I take issue with you that the soldiers ran amok. That's speculation, which I go into in depth in the book.

Here's an idea. (If the Moderator agrees). I'm perfectly happy to e-mail anybody that wants it - a soft copy of this famous book of mine. Just PM me, give me your e-mail address and I'd be happy to send it to you or anyone who wants it - AT NO COST.

I'm not expecting to change mind-sets. But you might as well see what the hell I'm on about. It's far too time consuming to post large posts here. I feel like I'm writing the book again.

pedroeibar1 · 19-08-2014 3:38pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Let’s deal with specifics, shall we. My focus is very narrow. I've seen other posts since I starting writing this one and hopefully, I will get to them anon. Did Cromwell deliberately massacre any civilians in Drogheda and Wexford in 1649? That is the question. The only question. The nub. The issue. The thing that makes people annoyed with me.

Not annoyed with you, just repeatedly asking for sources should not have been necessary.
Much of what you have written has little bearing on what you claim. What you call ‘evidence’ is not that, it is conjecture and assumption. The ‘civilian conspiracies’ to betray Drogheda you mention are a red herring.

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Many observers have claimed that Cromwell himself admitted to killing ‘many inhabitants’ at Drogheda. This is because of a list of the slain that is attached to a letter (battle report) that he wrote to parliament on 27 September 1649 that is reproduced in the official parliamentary pamphlet - Letters from Ireland, relating the Several great successes it hath pleased God to give unto the Parliaments Forces there in the taking of Drogheda, Trym, Dundalk, Carlingford, and the Nury. Together with a list of the chief commanders, and the number of the officers and soldiers slain in Drogheda. . . . (1649) Wing (2nd ed.) / L1778, reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575) [7].

The original letter does not survive. In my book I have proved that this list was written on 22 September FIVE days before Cromwell wrote his letter. This is evident by John Dillingham’s (author of The Moderate Intelligencer) correspondent in Ireland who reported the same list to Dillingham on that date. (John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575, [10]). Furthermore. I have shown that the list is quite clearly separate from the letter with a clear black demarcation line separating the list from the letter. Spelling differences also prevail indicating that several hands were at work and not just Cromwell’s.

I have also proved that seven newsbooks print the same list (with differences in some names) in the early weeks of October 1649. Five of those newsbooks leave out the words ‘and many inhabitants’ and two print them. Here are the seven references: (snip)

In God’s Executioner, historian Micheál Ó’Siochrú misses two of these newsbooks. I have also proved that NONE of the newsbook writers attribute the list to Cromwell. I

So what? Pick seven newspapers today and read the same story – how many will be identical? The ‘facts’ will be similar but the detail will be quite at variance. How many Iraqis were killed on mountain? Guerrillas killed –vs- government troops elsewhere? At best all that means is that there is a question mark over the date of Cromwell’s letter or if he did / did not write the list or revise it - so what? It does not disprove the consensus that civilians were killed. It’s also quite common for a politician (or his minders) to cover ass or afterwards want something seen differently. Lists usually are annexures and easily changed post event. No big deal to have them separate to the main document. O'Siochru quotes 5, is that not enough?

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Of course the crucial caveat here is that these ‘inhabitants’ might well have been armed. Because I have also discovered that Dillingham reports that some of the civilians of Drogheda got involved in the battle. The Moderate Intelligencer (30 August – 6 September) provides the evidence. Dillingham’s correspondent writes that Ormond “furnished it [Drogheda]well with all necessities, every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms, is in posture of war.”

In that same issue of The Moderate Intelligencer Dillingham also provides evidence that proves most of the population were not even in Drogheda at the time when he writes:
“Ormond ‘lies between Tredagh and Trim, intending if he can to be a spectator at the siege of the first, if not of both, which by the advantage of the river, he hopes to do rather than by the valour of his men; he hath cleared Tredagh of all superfluous and suspected persons”.

Why does everybody assume that the local inhabitants stayed in the town? Granted, we do not know a lot about the movements of the inhabitants but there are some facts that are quite clear. Firstly, there was a five-month long siege of the town just eight years earlier that had dire consequences on the food and supply levels of the civilian population. Is it sensible to assume that those same inhabitants would simply stay put when they could easily flee? They had ample time to do so with the Ironsides camped outside the town for a week before hostilities began.
Secondly, we know that Aston was prepared for a long siege and that they had stocked up on supplies that would last for months. (The Kingdom’s Faithfull and Impartial Scout reported on the 5 October 1649 that there were victuals stocked up in the town to last nine months.) Thirdly, it would seem to make sense that with a population of 3,000 people and a garrison of 3,000 soldiers that a reduction in the number of mouths to feed would be an obvious military decision to make.

How can you call that evidence of clearing a town? Just because a few people left, or Ormonde wanted a reduction in numbers is no indication that any town – including Drogheda - was ‘cleared’. In fact, contrary to your assertions, they most like were not cleared. Can you imagine how clearing a town would be achieved – (“Excuse me Sir, but ASAP would you mind leaving your house, home, goods, and the safety of this walled town and get thyself with thy family off into the countryside full of marauding soldiers.”) That would really work! Were the defenders to achieve it at sword-point? Really motivating for the soldiers to see their families kicked out by colleagues! You say that the experiences of the First Siege of Drogheda would have led to an exodus – that is a very unreasonable assumption, when you should know that at the First Siege the defenders withstood repeated attacks – and held out and were rescued. All the more reason for citizens to remain inside the walls. As you state yourself, there was a huge amount of food stored at Drogheda and the cavalry was ranged to prevent people from leaving.

Tom Reilly wrote: »

But that’s not the only evidence we have for civilians being dispatched from the town. We already know that Dean Nicholas Bernard’s wife and children are documented as being ‘sent out of the town’. And just to copper-fasten the suggestion that this action was desirable in order to conduct a long siege, which was exactly the plan, Ormond does exactly the same thing at Wexford. In a letter to the mayor of Wexford on 9 October, 1649, two days before the Parliamentarian army managed to force their way into the town, and still hoping for a long siege there, still outside the walls of Wexford, Ormond explains why:

"Wee are come hither to countenance the maintenance and to relieve the necessities of the towne, and doe find upon examination of the conditions thereof that provision of victuals wilbe the greatest want in all probability to draw any distresse thereon, and withal finde the Country here soe exhausted that it wilbe difficult to supply the Towne with provision for all sortes of people there. And therefore pray and require you after examination of each Inhabitants provision that you send out the unnecessary people, as ould men, women and children with that expedition that whilst wee are here, we may send them whither they propose to go themselves most safely."

Ormond cleared the town of all superfluous and suspected people. This is a seminal piece of evidence not usually quoted in the context of Cromwell at Drogheda. And yet it could easily be interpreted to imply that all ‘superfluous’ people, including men – not inclined to take up arms - and women and children were cleared from the town. Indeed it also implies that some inhabitants may well have taken up arms since every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms was in a posture of war. Unlike The Man in the Moon and Mercurius Elencticus, The Moderate Intelligencer was considered to be the one of the most reliable and respected broadsheets of its day. Dillingham, its author, who was renowned for his excellent contacts with both parliamentary officials and army leaders, seemed to portray an open mind and an impartial perspective on contemporary events to the point where his publication is often called The Times of its day. So if we don’t ignore Dillingham’s army contact’s evidence then we must assume that the ‘superfluous’ people in Drogheda were removed from the town.
So regarding this particular piece of evidence it is absolutely the case that we cannot be sure that Cromwell wrote ‘and many inhabitants’. And what’s more, if inhabitants did die, there is now evidence to suggest that anyone who was inclined to took up arms against parliament.
…

That is not any ‘seminal piece of evidence’ - it's a few people and it is conjecture and extrapolating data to suit your argument, so it is highly specious. Furthermore, it was a military tactic of the besiegers to prevent citizens from leaving, as it caused hassle to the defending commanders, drained resources and more importantly put pressure on food, living conditions/disease and morale. Of course any defending general would want civilians out of the way, just as much as the attackers would prevent them leaving. For example, Limerick fell as a direct result of a few new civic leaders (elected during the siege) persuading a few of Hugh Dubh’s soldiers to seize St John’s Gate and its cannon. They then threatened to turn the guns on the defenders if he did not surrender. Before that happened attempts had been made to expel some of the citizens from the City but Ireton did not allow it, and on the next attempt killed them before the walls

Tom Reilly wrote: »

We also know that within the town of Drogheda there was a civilian conspiracy to betray the place to Cromwell. The scheme of Lady Wilmot (Sir Arthur Aston’s grandmother) and her several espionage associates was exposed when her messenger, a young boy, was caught with letters in his possession that were destined for Parliamentarian hands. One of her co-conspirators was a Lady Blayney whose letter (signed A.B.) to Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes (Colonel John Ffolk became Governor of Drogheda in 1650 according to the Corporation of Drogheda records.) opened with the line

‘Sir, The hearing of your coming this way is a great joy to me, but it has driven all the lords away, and my Ladie Moore.’

This is further evidence that non-military personnel had departed the scene. With the conspiracy exposed, Aston banished the undercover agents to the monastery at nearby Mellifont, where (it would make sense that) the town’s civilians might have been also seeking refuge.

That’s evidence of a few people, not a population. Mellifont? Are you asserting that Cromwell would have obeyed the sanctity’ of a Catholic monastery?

I have no issues with revising the numbers of those killed, these inevitably are exaggerated, like for e.g. the numbers used in the Depositions. We see that on a daily basis in conflicts around the world.
I cannot see what your claim adds to our understanding, far too many assumptions, conjecture and lack of evidence (just because a letter is written does not mean its contents will be obeyed).

Many of your arguments can be stood on their collective heads and used against you. Rather than convincing me, the paucity of real evidence (not your surmise, conjecture or assumptions) actually strengthens my belief that the book has little merit. And as you say,

Tom Reilly wrote: »

. Jeez, this is fricken time consuming…

agreed, it also is very tiresome.

Tom Reilly · 19-08-2014 3:40pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Simply, Cromwell ordered ‘No Quarter’, no quarter was given, he then totally lost control of his troops and he had set the scene for the civilian atrocities by his own actions..

Not true my friend, to whom I owe an apology. Just not true. Sorry man (or woman). Must have been in a mood yesterday. The Moderator has pointed out that my style was inappropriate. Just being defensive. I'm not proud of what I wrote. And I know I can't take it back.

Apologies again. If you want a soft copy of my book just let me know (PM) and I can e-mail you one free, if the Moderator allows such an activity. I'm also on FB, if that helps.

Tom Reilly · 19-08-2014 3:49pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not annoyed with you, just repeatedly asking for sources should not have been necessary.
Much of what you have written has little bearing on what you claim. What you call ‘evidence’ is not that, it is conjecture and assumption. The ‘civilian conspiracies’ to betray Drogheda you mention are a red herring.

So what? Pick seven newspapers today and read the same story – how many will be identical? The ‘facts’ will be similar but the detail will be quite at variance. How many Iraqis were killed on mountain? Guerrillas killed –vs- government troops elsewhere? At best all that means is that there is a question mark over the date of Cromwell’s letter or if he did / did not write the list or revise it - so what? It does not disprove the consensus that civilians were killed. It’s also quite common for a politician (or his minders) to cover ass or afterwards want something seen differently. Lists usually are annexures and easily changed post event. No big deal to have them separate to the main document. O'Siochru quotes 5, is that not enough?

How can you call that evidence of clearing a town? Just because a few people left, or Ormonde wanted a reduction in numbers is no indication that any town – including Drogheda - was ‘cleared’. In fact, contrary to your assertions, they most like were not cleared. Can you imagine how clearing a town would be achieved – (“Excuse me Sir, but ASAP would you mind leaving your house, home, goods, and the safety of this walled town and get thyself with thy family off into the countryside full of marauding soldiers.”) That would really work! Were the defenders to achieve it at sword-point? Really motivating for the soldiers to see their families kicked out by colleagues! You say that the experiences of the First Siege of Drogheda would have led to an exodus – that is a very unreasonable assumption, when you should know that at the First Siege the defenders withstood repeated attacks – and held out and were rescued. All the more reason for citizens to remain inside the walls. As you state yourself, there was a huge amount of food stored at Drogheda and the cavalry was ranged to prevent people from leaving.

That is not any ‘seminal piece of evidence’ - it's a few people and it is conjecture and extrapolating data to suit your argument, so it is highly specious. Furthermore, it was a military tactic of the besiegers to prevent citizens from leaving, as it caused hassle to the defending commanders, drained resources and more importantly put pressure on food, living conditions/disease and morale. Of course any defending general would want civilians out of the way, just as much as the attackers would prevent them leaving. For example, Limerick fell as a direct result of a few new civic leaders (elected during the siege) persuading a few of Hugh Dubh’s soldiers to seize St John’s Gate and its cannon. They then threatened to turn the guns on the defenders if he did not surrender. Before that happened attempts had been made to expel some of the citizens from the City but Ireton did not allow it, and on the next attempt killed them before the walls

That’s evidence of a few people, not a population. Mellifont? Are you asserting that Cromwell would have obeyed the sanctity’ of a Catholic monastery?

I have no issues with revising the numbers of those killed, these inevitably are exaggerated, like for e.g. the numbers used in the Depositions. We see that on a daily basis in conflicts around the world.
I cannot see what your claim adds to our understanding, far too many assumptions, conjecture and lack of evidence (just because a letter is written does not mean its contents will be obeyed).

Many of your arguments can be stood on their collective heads and used against you. Rather than convincing me, the paucity of real evidence (not your surmise, conjecture or assumptions) actually strengthens my belief that the book has little merit. And as you say,

agreed, it also is very tiresome.

Oops. We crossed over there. Thanks for taking the time to respond at length. Why don't you simply read the book, dismiss it, and then we'll all be happy.

And I don't mean that in an aggressive or negative way. You have a vested interest. But your arguments are weak IMO. Tiresome is absolutely right. I completely disagree with you in all of your responses. You have to take ALL of the evidence into account. Especially Cromwell's declaration at Youghal.

I'm not copping out. I just feel you should read everything I've written.

pedroeibar1 · 19-08-2014 6:02pm

Lets agree to disagree; no need to apologise, no hard feelings. I'll wait for the reviews and if a professional gives it a rave review I'll buy it.:)

Tom Reilly · 19-08-2014 7:59pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Lets agree to disagree; no need to apologise, no hard feelings. I'll wait for the reviews and if a professional gives it a rave review I'll buy it.:)

Cool. That's a deal. Appreciate that. If a professional gives it a rave review, I'll be amazed.

ChicagoJoe · 22-08-2014 2:31pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

I have also said that I won't get a single cent for my book so you can say what you like about publicity. I don't care about money. (Say what you like about that. You'll be joining a long queue.)

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

Tom Reilly · 22-08-2014 2:44pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

Good holy lantern Jaysus.

Tom Reilly · 22-08-2014 2:53pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Maybe you could recommend a good book on Cromwell as clearly your own conceited history of him isn't up to much ?

What is it about these forums?! Are people always as horrible as this? Seriously? Maybe it's the anonymity.

Fratton Fred · 22-08-2014 8:29pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

What is it about these forums?! Are people always as horrible as this? Seriously? Maybe it's the anonymity.

Don't worry about Chicago Joe, the only version of Irish history he is interested in is the official NORAID one. Any other version is just a revisionist's apology for imperialism.

Tom Reilly · 23-08-2014 9:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't worry about Chicago Joe, the only version of Irish history he is interested in is the official NORAID one. Any other version is just a revisionist's apology for imperialism.

Thanks...erm...Fratton Fred. Not used to these forum yokes. Hard to get my head around the fact that people just rip into you from the off. I'm probably too soft. As someone who is acutely apolitical, and areligious, (if that's a word) it still amazes me how people's politics and religion can completely influence the way they view history, especially Cromwell in Ireland. Not necessarily Chicago Joe. Just saying.

jonniebgood1 · 23-08-2014 11:00pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

If you want a proper discussion then you need to make sensible points backed up with material such as sources. The above post does none of this. Any more of this type of post will result in infractions.

Moderator

Ozymandiaz · 25-08-2014 8:02pm

Tom Reilly, contrary to your own opinion of yourself you are not good, and I hardly think god thinks so either! Neither have you proved your case. You are selective in the use of primary sources and you seem to have an obvious anti-Nationalist, anti-Catholic bias.

Your argument collapses in the face of the phrase 'and many inhabitants'. Parliament controlled the press through the Council of State and published only its own edited and sanctioned version of the news of the day. There were other clandestine news media in circulation but these words came at the end of parliament's own published report of events at Drogheda. Parliament clearly endorsed the notion that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda perished at the hands of Cromwell's New Model Army during the siege of September 1649. This fact was not a slur on Cromwell's memory by Restoration royalists or an Irish Nationalist invention.

PS - Your manner of expression on this forum is wholly inappropriate, being facetious, emotive and confrontational with the intent, no doubt, of raising peoples' hackles and generating some publicity for yourself. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it simply and to the point. Your 'street cred' manner of expression and penchant for playing to the gallery has no relevance here.

Tom Reilly · 25-08-2014 9:37pm

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Tom Reilly, contrary to your own opinion of yourself you are not good, and I hardly think god thinks so either! Neither have you proved your case. You are selective in the use of primary sources and you seem to have an obvious anti-Nationalist, anti-Catholic bias.

Your argument collapses in the face of the phrase 'and many inhabitants'. Parliament controlled the press through the Council of State and published only its own edited and sanctioned version of the news of the day. There were other clandestine news media in circulation but these words came at the end of parliament's own published report of events at Drogheda. Parliament clearly endorsed the notion that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda perished at the hands of Cromwell's New Model Army during the siege of September 1649. This fact was not a slur on Cromwell's memory by Restoration royalists or an Irish Nationalist invention.

PS - Your manner of expression on this forum is wholly inappropriate, being facetious, emotive and confrontational with the intent, no doubt, of raising peoples' hackles and generating some publicity for yourself. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it simply and to the point. Your 'street cred' manner of expression and penchant for playing to the gallery has no relevance here.

Oh, hi Ozymandiaz. How are you? Nice to meet you. Even if it is on a forum. Me? I'm great thanks. I'm sure you're a lovely person really. Isn't this the kind of response you'd expect from me? I remember my mother telling me something very significant years ago. You might be interested to know it. "People," she said. "Never get involved with people."

You're right of course, my argument collapses in the light of your dismissal as outlined above. But you neglected to mention one thing. That's just your opinion. Others might disagree. Indeed, I do believe I disagree myself. Unfortunately I haven't got the stomach to respond here. I've realised that no matter what I say it won't make a jot of a difference. It was a mistake coing on here. But hey, God knows, I've made plenty of mistakes in the past. As for my 'street cred'. It's called 'personality' where I come from. That's who I am.

Anyway, it was nice to meet you. Maybe if we meet under different circumstances we can have a civilised conversation about it. But I'm not going to rise to you here. Sorry man. Or woman. I quit.

Tom Reilly · 26-08-2014 9:55am

Oh, by the way Ozymandiaz, I forgot to say...I appreciate that you think my argument collapses in the circumstances. I've got no problem with your opinion on that. I find a lot of people have the exactly same mind. Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

But I do have a question for you. Since you think my argument collapses on these grounds, do you think that the publishing of three the words 'and many inhabitants' by parliament is irrefutable proof that large numbers of grannies, granddads, uncles, aunties, teenagers, toddlers and babies were killed indiscriminately (or discriminately even) at Drogheda by Cromwell's troops?

Ozymandiaz · 26-08-2014 1:42pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

do you think that the publishing of three the words 'and many inhabitants' by parliament is irrefutable proof that large numbers of grannies, granddads, uncles, aunties, teenagers, toddlers and babies were killed indiscriminately (or discriminately even) at Drogheda by Cromwell's troops?

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.

Tom Reilly · 26-08-2014 1:50pm

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.

Excellent answer. So...these were armed inhabitants or unarmed inhabitants in your opinion? I'm guessing that you must have an opinion.

Snickers Man · 27-08-2014 12:17am

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If the massacre really did occur in Drogheda it functioned much like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bringing about a quicker end to the war in Ireland.

Ah yes. The familiar argument of the mass murderer down through the ages. "We were just killing indiscriminately now to prevent further slaughter later on. If it works, we'll get away with it (sort of)."

This is precisely the argument that the Germans used for their heavy handedness in Belgium 100 years ago this year. "We were trying to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. By being harsh on civilians in response to guerilla (or franc tireur) activitiy, we were actually saving lives in the long run."

It was bollox then, a fact that even the Germans now acknowledge. Witness their current president's recent remarks at the commemoration in Ypres. It was bollox in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and it was bollox in 17th century Ireland.

pedroeibar1 · 27-08-2014 10:40am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Ah yes. The familiar argument of the mass murderer down through the ages. "We were just killing indiscriminately now to prevent further slaughter later on. If it works, we'll get away with it (sort of)."

I’m not sure that is what is being said. Slaughters happened, usually when a commander lost control of his troops, as in Drogheda. Nobody has suggested that Cromwell deliberately set out to massacre Drogheda ‘to prevent further slaughter later on’. Subsequently there were surrenders ‘on terms’ that were adhered to and when there were no ‘terms’ slaughters happened – e.g. Wexford. Both Kilkenny and Clonmel surrendered on Terms, and yes, those events were influenced by what happened at Drogheda. Firth’s book on the New Model Army is quite an interesting read on discipline.

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is precisely the argument that the Germans used for their heavy handedness in Belgium 100 years ago this year. "We were trying to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. By being harsh on civilians in response to guerilla (or franc tireur) activitiy, we were actually saving lives in the long run."
It was bollox then, a fact that even the Germans now acknowledge. Witness their current president's recent remarks at the commemoration in Ypres. It was bollox in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and it was bollox in 17th century Ireland.

Irrelevant – no point in trying to compare what happened in 17th and 20th century warfare, rules of engagement and custom were entirely different. A little matter of the Geneva Conventions. Before ‘hearts and minds’ it was common to have reprisals. When ‘hearts and minds’ don’t matter, you get what is going on in Palestine today.

Tom Reilly · 27-08-2014 11:04am

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.

Sorry Ozymandiaz, maybe you're busy and unable to post at the moment, so I just thought I'd make it easier for you. You're barking up the wrong tree with the 'and many inhabitants' angle. The inhabitants mentioned might easily have been armed. It's a question of interpretation. Historians John Morrill, Micheál Ó'Siochrú and Jason McElligott all believe as you do and I have taken all three to task over this in a very lengthy chapter in my latest work.

Just for your information, although you may already know this, 'Severall Proceedings in Parliament' was also an official parliament publication that was scripted by Scobell and the following week on Tuesday 9 October parliament printed the same list of the slain in the inaugural issue but this time the three incriminating words (and many inhabitants) are missing. (Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]).

Just saying.

I would like you to be very clear about why you feel my argument 'collapses' based on the 'and many inhabitants' scenario. Naturally, I disagree vehemently and I have solid grounds on which to do so.

And I say again - I am talking about the unarmed blacksmiths, innkeepers, tailors, carpenters, servants, washerwomen, teenage girls, teenage boys, children, toddlers and babies of Drogheda. Those 'many inhabitants' referred to could have been armed. But you seem to dismiss that. After all, an armed civilian is no longer a civilian.

I would be interested in your (or anybody's) response to this.

Manach · 27-08-2014 11:45am

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.

cruasder777 · 27-08-2014 12:54pm

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.

pedroeibar1 · 27-08-2014 2:37pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

Irish at that time lived outside towns.

Cromwell's history in Ireland has been distorted by not being written by objective sources.

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.

Tom Reilly · 27-08-2014 3:03pm

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...

Snickers Man · 27-08-2014 4:33pm

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"

[

Tom Reilly · 27-08-2014 4:35pm

Wednesday 27 August 2014: Tom Reilly (That's me) talks to Matt Cooper on Today FM about Cromwell at 6.40pm approximately this evening.

Tom Reilly · 27-08-2014 5:23pm

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.

cruasder777 · 27-08-2014 5:38pm

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.

Tom Reilly · 27-08-2014 5:46pm

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.

pedroeibar1 · 27-08-2014 5:51pm

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.

Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Comments