Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Snickers Man · 31-08-2014 7:24pm

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

pedroeibar1 · 31-08-2014 7:35pm

Tut tut, Snickers. Owning up to looking at Wiki, I'm surprised at you!

pedroeibar1 · 31-08-2014 7:44pm

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

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.

- 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.

Snickers Man · 01-09-2014 10:59am

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:D

jonniebgood1 · 01-09-2014 3:07pm

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.

cruasder777 · 01-09-2014 7:03pm

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.

cruasder777 · 01-09-2014 7:08pm

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.

Tom Reilly · 02-09-2014 12:25pm

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.

ChicagoJoe · 05-09-2014 2:54pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

If you had bothered to read earlier posts in this thread before posting – for example my comment in #28

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.

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.

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.

ChicagoJoe · 05-09-2014 3:03pm

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

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.

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.

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 !!!!

cruasder777 · 05-09-2014 7:19pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

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.

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 !!!!

Im just interested in objective truth, its a fact that Cromwell the bogeyman was used as a political tool by nationalists after the 19th century, its also a fact, to this day children are still taught in the republic that Cromwell banished the population to Connaught etc a complete lie. In Europe's civil wars of the time populations fell considerably from mostly disease and famine, same in Ireland.

cruasder777 · 05-09-2014 7:23pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

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.

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.

There you go, its a genuine book not a conspiracy, its what the republic basis its judgement of Cromwell on :

https://archive.org/stream/cromwellinirela01murpgoog#page/n7/mode/2up

jonniebgood1 · 07-09-2014 7:27pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

...
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.

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

....
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 !!!!

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

God Tom, those grapes sure are very sour aren't they ............!"[/CENTER]

I interpret the above posts as trolling. As you are repeatedly doing so you will receive a ban as opposed to a lesser infraction. I have removed several of your posts as they seem aimed at creating an argument usually along religious on Unionist v nationalist lines.

Moderator

Snickers Man · 11-09-2014 11:25am

Today is September 11th. And we all know what happened on this day in history. A brutal slaughter justified by its perpetrators as the condign retribution of their vengeful God on barbarous wretches who had it coming to them.

Some, on the flimsiest of evidence, have tried to say that the consensus view is erroneous. That we have been sold a pup by those who have written about the event in the interim, that what really took place was very different and the real bad guys were not those we have all been encouraged to think of as such. Although proponents of this view have largely been ridiculed as cranks and "Truthers".

Then there's those who say that the event has to be taken in the context of its times. "Look at what happened in Europe in living memory!" they would say. "Look what those allied to the victims of this slaughter did when the boot was on the other foot! That's just the way it was in those days. Not like now"

Oh and apparently something happened in America on this day in 2001, but for us September 11, 1649 is forever a day that will live in infamy.

pedroeibar1 · 12-09-2014 10:39am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Today is September 11th. .....etc.

Interesting comparisons. My position has always been that events need to be viewed in context; the Native Irish were viewed through a haze of propaganda created by tracts and Puritan preachers. Centuries later another young army viewed the Great Satan from a perspective created by dogma propounded by fundamentalists in madrassas. Mind-set matters, be it a notion by a race that perceive themselves to be rightful owners of a territory in a belief it has been given to them by their god, or those who believe they – and only they – have the right to enter an afterworld. For regular armies, consider the opposite perspectives of Japanese and Allied troops in WW2 in such matters as ‘surrender’ and 'capture'. Contemporary perception and indoctrination must be factored in to understand context. And that includes the manner in which history has been taught.

Snickers Man · 17-09-2014 4:57pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Interesting comparisons. My position has always been that events need to be viewed in context;

True indeed. But there's also great truth in the adage "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

pedroeibar1 · 17-09-2014 5:39pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

True indeed. But there's also great truth in the adage "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

Tout à fait! But that is a relatively recent ‘idiom’, from J-B Alphonse Karr c 1850’s. Fascinating guy, there is a street named after him in Nice, and on it is one of my favourite restaurants, Rolancy’s, where 'Heritage' food is served.

Jesus. · 03-11-2014 7:53pm

Anyone hear Riley on Moncrieff today? Gave a good account of himself to be fair.

Starts at 37:16

http://www.newstalk.com/player/listen_back/8/13990/03rd_November_2014_-_Moncrieff_Part_2

Tom Reilly · 03-11-2014 8:19pm

Didn't have a lot of time. Had to get as much in there as I could. Thanks Jesus. Facts is facts. They kinda speak for themselves.

pedroeibar1 · 03-11-2014 11:04pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Didn't have a lot of time. Had to get as much in there as I could. Thanks Jesus. Facts is facts. They kinda speak for themselves.

Came across well, balanced. Pity the clock was against it. At least Moncreiffe has a brain, and did not go off on a rant, unlike Hook and several other idiots on 106. Has there been any academic comment yet or are they swayed/afraid? (Haven't read it yet, it has now worked up to second from top of the pile!)

Tom Reilly · 04-11-2014 4:59pm

Second from the top of your reading list is quite an achievement Pedro. I was wondering if you were ever going to get to it. You can find reviews for the book on the publisher's page. (I can't post links here yet.) Chronos Books. One is by an academic. Padraig Lenehan. He's one of the academics I challenge in the book, so it's not a complimentary review. His attitude was to be expected. Unfortunately, he offered no solid rebuff except to say that I was wrong. Of course I'm only wrong when I'm proved wrong. So far nobody's managed to do that. Certainly not Lenehan.

I'm surprised you put so much store in the opinions of academics. That's a few times you've said that, if you don't mind me saying. I'm a little different. I believe academics are fallible. And I won't be told how things are from those in their ivory towers. I make up my own mind. I would have thought that you could read my stuff and form your own views of it. What possible difference would it make if you knew what the opinions of a plethora of academics thought about it? Even if they were ALL the same. Why should their opinions effect yours? Surely, you can make up your own mind. The facts are there for all to see. Of course, I could have misinterpreted your remarks in this regard. (Imagine - remarks being misinterpreted here?! Why, the very thought of it.) If I have I apologise.

Anyway, as it happens there are plenty of academics who agree with me.

I'm still very keen to know what you think of the book though. You're pretty well tuned in to this period. All rebuffs will be gratefully received.

pedroeibar1 · 04-11-2014 5:10pm

The reviews are here I will post when I have read it. (This BB has been quiet of late!)

Tom Reilly · 04-11-2014 5:49pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The reviews are here I will post when I have read it. (This BB has been quiet of late!)

Grand job. I look forward to your post. I think.

Jesus. · 04-11-2014 10:29pm

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Thanks Jesus.

No problemo compadre.

So Lenihan's having a go? I came across him on a Cromwell Docu for RTE. Apart from the fact Cromwell has an Irish accent and the presenter looks like a Pikey, I thought it was pretty good. You'd no doubt disagree, Tommy lad

He looks and sounds remarkably like the late Brian Lenihan. Are they related?

Skip to 5:55

Tom Reilly · 05-11-2014 11:40am

Jesus. wrote: »

No problemo compadre.

So Lenihan's having a go? I came across him on a Cromwell Docu for RTE. Apart from the fact Cromwell has an Irish accent and the presenter looks like a Pikey, I thought it was pretty good. You'd no doubt disagree, Tommy lad

He looks and sounds remarkably like the late Brian Lenihan. Are they related?

The ebullient Professor Micheál Ó'Siochrú won't thank you for describing him as a Pikey Jesus.

I don't disagree at all. I think it's a great programme. Very well produced. Unfortunately, there are one or two statements by Ó'Siochrú, Lenihan and John Morrill in it that set us back years. But that's only a small part of it. It certainly catapulted the atrocious historic period into the public eye at the time (and indeed still does) and anything that does that is good in my book.

Don't think they're related. It's possible though. I get the similarities myself.

sandycrack · 01-07-2015 4:56pm

"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. "

I'm sure that's the case Arsemegeddon, but this subject does not just float around in academic circles. Most Irish people view Cromwell as: mass killer of innocent men, women and babies, particularly at Drogheda and Wexford. THE worse thing that ever happened to us ~ case closed!

It seems to me that Tom Reilly's saying that the Irish school curriculum should not be taking that same line and should allow a bit of balance to the subject. Just so it reflects the division of opinion on the subject. After all it isn't just him. Seems quite reasonable to me.

Tom Reilly · 01-07-2015 5:14pm

Well, it's been a year now since this sleeping giant was last awake. I had almost forgotten about it. Well said Sandycrack. That's exactly what I'm saying. And it seems quite reasonable to me too. Well, it would wouldn't it.

The TV documentary, with which I am involved, that soon goes into production will get to the masses. And we will eventually change those schoolbooks. Watch this space. Well, euphemistically speaking. Not quite THIS space.

Go me. Yey.

pedroeibar1 · 01-07-2015 7:51pm

Tom,
I did read the book and found it fascinating in many parts and in others got bogged down in what to an ordinary reader seems excessive detail; heavy going at times, not made easy by having to read it ar$eways in PDF on my Kindle. A case where hard copy is much better.

In my opinion you killed (or certainly ruined the chances) of your theory / hypothesis / premise at the outset by “putting it up” to the academic world, who are a sniffy lot at the best of times, but when on page 1 you proudly shove your lack of academic credentials in their collective faces, their united superciliousness will know no bounds. That is a pity, as I remain convinced that there is some merit in your theory. Actually, at times its detractors provide information that actually support your views, if interpreted differently e.g. Morill, or O’Siochru in ”Age of Atrocity“. The verse of 17th C poets (often used by O’Siochru) I do not regard as acceptable “proof” and would place that on the same level as the propaganda writings of post-1641 Protestant bigots in England.

O’Siochru got a two-year research fellowship to work on what amounted to a sixteen page article on Cromwell in Drogheda (in "Age" above). I cannot compete with that, and as my Cromwellian interest is the Settlement period and immediately after, I don’t have the level of curiosity in Drogheda to justify the time………

Best of luck with the TV documentary, I’m looking forward to it.
Go you, Yey!

Jesus. · 01-07-2015 11:35pm

I think I know why this thread has been resurrected and I think I know who Sandycrack is.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MOD EDIT: If you have a concern about a poster you PM a moderator to discuss.

No more here lest it turn into the type of rubbish you linked to.
jonniebgood1
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Tom Reilly · 02-07-2015 4:07pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Tom,
I did read the book and found it fascinating in many parts and in others got bogged down in what to an ordinary reader seems excessive detail; heavy going at times, not made easy by having to read it ar$eways in PDF on my Kindle. A case where hard copy is much better.

In my opinion you killed (or certainly ruined the chances) of your theory / hypothesis / premise at the outset by “putting it up” to the academic world, who are a sniffy lot at the best of times, but when on page 1 you proudly shove your lack of academic credentials in their collective faces, their united superciliousness will know no bounds. That is a pity, as I remain convinced that there is some merit in your theory. Actually, at times its detractors provide information that actually support your views, if interpreted differently e.g. Morill, or O’Siochru in ”Age of Atrocity“. The verse of 17th C poets (often used by O’Siochru) I do not regard as acceptable “proof” and would place that on the same level as the propaganda writings of post-1641 Protestant bigots in England.

O’Siochru got a two-year research fellowship to work on what amounted to a sixteen page article on Cromwell in Drogheda (in "Age" above). I cannot compete with that, and as my Cromwellian interest is the Settlement period and immediately after, I don’t have the level of curiosity in Drogheda to justify the time………

Best of luck with the TV documentary, I’m looking forward to it.
Go you, Yey!

Thanks Pedro. I was kinda hoping I'd hear from you at some stage. I'm taking your comments as positive. I'm a glass full type of guy. You don't seem to have any issues with the arguments we discussed before. Or maybe it's just that you're lacking the inclination. Which I get.

With regard to your comments, for my part, I always drive home the non-academic side of things. In my opinion it emphasises the disparity between those who have promoted the accepted wisdom for centuries and ordinary Joes like myself - who was just curious/cynical. I play it up to show them up. That's my thing. Right or wrong. It's me versus academia. A background story that emphasises the tsunami of misinformation/propaganda we've been taught over the years versus the truth. Information, I as a mere commoner if you will, did not accept. I certainly don't think it 'killed' my thesis as you say. But you're entitled to your opinion. As I always say - I have submitted the evidence for all to see. My opinion doesn't really matter a jot. This highly emotive topic needs interpretational balance. And the historians I mention in the book are the roadblock to this balance. That's just not acceptable.

The 'excessive' detail in the book, as you call it, is not for the general reader. It is a forensic analysis of the contemporary documents, and it left no stone unturned. Images of primary source docs were used instead of footnotes. I did this so no one could challenge them and so anyone interested could interpret them for themselves. And not be told by a historian what the interpretation should be.

You might have noticed how I am constantly challenged on this issue. Well, this book will take some challenging. Why? Because I am completely right.

And it's that type of talk that's gotten me into trouble before. But my thesis stands firm. It is virtually indestructible. And time alone will prove this. (Although the TV doc will help.)

Thanks again Pedro. If you're ever in Drogheda and you want a tour of the areas of Cromwellian interest - don't call me.

Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Comments