Cromwell

BrianCalgary

I'm curious how Cromwell is taught in Irish History Classes. I'm just after reading an article that says he was responsible for the deaths of about 3500 Irish after the battle at Drogheda.

This could have been in response to Catholic Irish killing 40-50,000 Protestants in Ulster 10 years or so earlier.

Flex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'm curious how Cromwell is taught in Irish History Classes. I'm just after reading an article that says he was responsible for the deaths of about 3500 Irish after the battle at Drogheda.

This could have been in response to Catholic Irish killing 40-50,000 Protestants in Ulster 10 years or so earlier.

From learning about him in primary school I remember he wasnt very popular to say the least Its been a while since I read on Cromwell, so someone can correct me if Im wrong here.As far as I know Cromwell did massacre Drogheda town, he bragged that only people escaped the sword or something, and did some other nasty things too. I think the population of Ireland was 1.4 million and when he was finished it was about 1.1 million. He also confiscated land off of the Irish to pay the soldiers who had fought for him in Ireland and make way for ANOTHER plantation of Ireland and passed a law stating that the native Irish who had lost there land had to live east of the river Shannon or be executed or something to that effect.

As for the Catholics killing Protestants in Ulster, the correct figure is around 4,000 IIRC. Also, those Catholics had had there land and homes taken from them and given to those people only years earlier, so there was deep resentment and anger on the part of Catholics and alot of sectarian and ethnic 'tension' between the natives and the British settlers.

Sand

Cromwell is viewed extremely negatively in Irish history - comparisons with Hitler arent an official part of the history course but as Flex has noted hes not remembered for anything positive. Mind you he only spent 9 months on the island, at the head of an army putting down a long running rebellion so the opportunities for PR exercises would have been limited. Either way he is responsible for sealing the colonisation of Ireland by English and Scottish planters.

Its hard to find neutral sources on Cromwells role in Ireland that go into any detail. Loyalists view the massacres of Protestants as demonstrating that their freedoms/security are only guaranteed with Britain, whereas Republicans view the massacres of Drogheda as revealing the true nature of the English-Irish relationship. The BBC have a quick note on the 1641 revolt that drew Cromwell to Ireland. The initial revolt is estimated by the BBC as killing 12,000 protestants out of a population of roughly 40,000. Apparently contemporary sources estimated hundreds of thousands dead, tortured etc etc so its easy enough to imagine that Cromwell came over a few years later with an axe to grind and a precedent set. Seems clear his harsh treatment of the Irish was a reaction the outrage/anger the rebellion and the massacres would have caused in England. And given the religious wars of the era Catholics wouldnt have been high in Cromwells estimation to begin with.

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the replies. They have shed quite a lot of light on my research (which started yesterday). On searching the web, I'm finding info on Drogheda and the Ulster uprising.

When I was in Ireland a few years back I remember hearing that Cromwell said 'to Hell or to Connaught" and proceeded to Connaught (or only Galway?) and massacred thousands. I can't find anything to back this claim up.

Zebra3

Never actually studied Cromwell in school.

The Irish history I studied was either about the Celts, Vikings, etc or from 1801 onwards.

arbeitsscheuer

It was he who famously said that the Burren was useless as it contained - "neither water enough to drown a man, nor a tree to hang him, nor soil enough to bury him" - which pretty aptly reveals his main aims in coming to Ireland...

luckat

There's a Wiki about Cromwell in Ireland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland

You might also look up the Pettit (not sure of the spelling) map of Ireland. This was commissioned by Cromwell to make a record of the Catholic landowners, for the purpose of stealing their land and transferring it into Protestant hands.

Edit: William Petty made the map.

Chinafoot

One thing you should consider in looking at Cromwell is that, yes he wasn't very nice in Irish eyes, but he was there to do a job. And he did it very well.

Also note that he was an active participant in the campaign, not just a leader sending men off to fight.

Credit where credit is due.

The_Conductor

I'm surprised that the massacre of Wexfords citizens was not mentioned here........ another 1,500 dead..... It was a case of surrender or face the consequences, and the consequences of surrendering were such that fighting to the death was often the only option. Even the population of Fethard- who were notorious for tending the Cromwellian wounded did not forgoe being deported to Connaught. Re: The burren- there was an expression "To hell or to Connaught".

While Cromwell may have been efficient, to this day the Irish cannot forgive being driven from their lands and having their possessions forfeit to mostly Protestant settlers from Scotland. What is considered as an injustice by many is to this day used as a justification for continuing the struggle in the North. Anyone who thinks its not sectarian need only read up on Cromwells 14 months of terror in Ireland- from Sept. 1650 to Nov 1651. Its nice to know that Galway was the final city to surrender.

BrianCalgary

smccarrick wrote:

Anyone who thinks its not sectarian need only read up on Cromwells 14 months of terror in Ireland- from Sept. 1650 to Nov 1651. Its nice to know that Galway was the final city to surrender.

Can you recommend a good book with an unbiased bent to it? The unbiased might be an impossible task.

The recent issue of Christian History and Biography makes it clear that Cromwell was acting as a Puritan and that all Catholics were evil in their support of the papacy. I would then conclude that the whole purpose for his reign was sectarian.

The Puritans also had problems with the Church of England, and is why they left for America.

mike65

I bet they don't mention how his rebellion against the King was the spark for parlimentary democracy (not that it would look to much like democracy as its now practised of course).

SebtheBum Cromwell never said the "neither water enough..." comment. It was by Edmund Ludlow but he did say In the name of God, go! Warts and All and my Local favourite By Hook (head) or by Crook (head).

Mike.

BrianCalgary

The Christian History mag does talk about his parliamentary reform. We even studied that in Canadian history class. The Ireland bit was left out. Mind you we were studying the beginnings of democracy and not English history.

nollaig

From what I recall, he was a bit of a bollix.

The phrase to hell or to connscht referred to all of connacht. Dont know about him massacring thousands there. Or do you mean he massacred thousands in Ireland and not just connacht?

The book, "Seek the Fair Land" by Walter Macken is set during the cromwell campaign. Its a really good read, its a fictional story but a good insight to the cromwell campaign and the dogheda thing

Zebra3

peachypants wrote:

One thing you should consider in looking at Cromwell is that, yes he wasn't very nice in Irish eyes, but he was there to do a job. And he did it very well.

So was Adolf Eichmann. :rolleyes:

peachypants wrote:

Also note that he was an active participant in the campaign, not just a leader sending men off to fight.

Credit where credit is due.

Ffs.

The_Conductor

Zebra3 wrote:

So was Adolf Eichmann. :rolleyes:
Ffs.

True- the Nuremburg trials condemned him for his "ruthless efficiency"- a similar description would not be astray with Cromwell......

NavanJunction1

Also remember "Nits breed lice" being attributed to him - and stories of his troops being encourage to kill babies..

Black Cromwell, as he was known. I remember passing the DART (Dublin Against Royal Tour) demonstration about 10 years ago when Charles Winsor was coming to visit.

There was a placard which read 'Cromwell was right' - I remember being bemused by it.

A republican hero in England, hated by republicans and most of the populace in Ireland even to this day.

NavanJunction1

Oh, and there was the small matter of his regime chartering slave ships which shipped tens of thousands on Irish women and children to the Americas and the Caribian as Slaves, on the smae slave ships that brought Africans there.

Amongst the many wonderful ideas this led to was 'cross-breeding' of Irish women with African men so that the children would be a lighter skin colour, and thus be more acceptable to the Planters.

This practice was stopped by an act of Parliament as it was reducing the demand for fresh African slaves.

Slavery from Ireland was stopped because it was discovered that the slaver gangs in Ireland had started to become uncontrollable and pick up English women.

These gangs roamed the countryside and rounded up whatever poor unfortunate women and children they came across.

Cromwell is not a hero.

nollaig

Oh, and there was the small matter of his regime chartering slave ships which shipped tens of thousands on Irish women and children to the Americas and the Caribian as Slaves, on the smae slave ships that brought Africans there.

Amongst the many wonderful ideas this led to was 'cross-breeding' of Irish women with African men so that the children would be a lighter skin colour, and thus be more acceptable to the Planters.

This practice was stopped by an act of Parliament as it was reducing the demand for fresh African slaves.

Slavery from Ireland was stopped because it was discovered that the slaver gangs in Ireland had started to become uncontrollable and pick up English women.

These gangs roamed the countryside and rounded up whatever poor unfortunate women and children they came across.

Cromwell is not a hero.

I think priests were part of that too, werent they? Wasnt there some islands where Irish was spoken up until recently because of the slaves that cromwell sent away from Ireland? Or am i getting mixed up with something else?

arbeitsscheuer

mike65 wrote:

SebtheBum Cromwell never said the "neither water enough..." comment. It was by Edmund Ludlow but he did say In the name of God, go! Warts and All and my Local favourite By Hook (head) or by Crook (head).

Yeah, sorry - I realised I'd got it wrong after I posted, and couldnt be arsed changing it! Ludlow was one of his Generals, and I think the quote was from a letter sent to Cromwell... I still think it sums up what Cromwell's forces were intent on doing on their "mission" to Ireland.

It is definitely true that Cromwell set Parliamentary democracy in motion in Britain, but quickly became its opponent when in power - his son became the defacto ruler after his death for God's sake, how democratic is hereditary rule?!

Nonetheless, the atrocities committed during the Irish Campaign were a result of a quest for vengeance that was shared by most Protestants, it was not as if he was ordering his armies to massacre women and children, it was just the accepted military doctrine which said that cities/besieged centres which refused to surrender would have most if not all of its inhabitants slaughtered if and when they were eventually overrun.

Sand

Nonetheless, the atrocities committed during the Irish Campaign were a result of a quest for vengeance that was shared by most Protestants, it was not as if he was ordering his armies to massacre women and children, it was just the accepted military doctrine which said that cities/besieged centres which refused to surrender would have most if not all of its inhabitants slaughtered if and when they were eventually overrun.

I actually read a small bit more on Cromwell, and after the taking of Drogheda and Wexford he actually had to chill out as the treatment of wexford ( his men stormed the town whilst the garrison was sitting down to discuss surrender terms) meant that other garrisons fought all the harder because they feared being killed even if they surrendered.

Either way Cromwells treatment of enemies wasnt exceptional for the time, nor was his sectarianism. Catholics and Protestants were busy slaughtering each other throughout Europe (Puritans fled England for the New World because they faced similar treatment). The reason why English Protestants if the era were so violently opposed to Catholics, and why its still law a Catholic cannot be monarch of England, is because they knew theyd be massacred if a Catholic came to power in England. It was massacre or be massacred. The fact that it seems ridiculous these days to get so worked up about it shows how alien the values of that era were.

Pointless trivia, Richard Harris, a hard drinking Irish hellraiser played Oliver Cromwell in a movie which dealt more with the English Civil War, than with his vist to Ireland. Cromwell may or may not see the funny side of that.

Cromwell is not a hero.

Who said he was? He was a product of his time, a successful general, and established through force of arms (if nothing else) the concept that the king should answer to the parliment. Even after the restoration English kings were aware they ruled only at the pleasure of parliment, leading to the constitutional monarchy and liberal democratic traditions of today. Was he a nice man? No, but neither were the barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Even so, historians point to the Magna Carta as a stepping stone on the road of western civillisation.

I dont think we (Irish people) can call foul over the treatment of Drogheda given the precedent set in 1641. It was wrong, but Cromwell was only following the Irish lead in that war.

NavanJunction1

Sand wrote:

I dont think we (Irish people) can call foul over the treatment of Drogheda given the precedent set in 1641. It was wrong, but Cromwell was only following the Irish lead in that war.

Unfortunately for that perspective, he was the aggressor in our land (Irish people's) rather than his own.

I think it is entirely reasonable that Irish people call foul. No English city's populace was put to the sword. Irish suffering was disproportionate to English.

There was no English suffering in that no place in England was affected by this war.

Sand

Unfortunately for that perspective, he was the aggressor in our land (Irish people's) rather than his own.

I think it is entirely reasonable that Irish people call foul. No English city's populace was put to the sword. Irish suffering was disproportionate to English.

There was no English suffering in that no place in England was affected by this war.

Its hard to find neutral sources on Cromwells role in Ireland that go into any detail....

Like I said before, politics inteferes greatly with historical analysis of Cromwell in Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

Sand wrote:

Like I said before, politics inteferes greatly with historical analysis of Cromwell in Ireland.

ain't that the truth. Also a lot of religious lables have been attached to the conflicts. And it all has to be taken in the context of the wars in Scotland too. Too much infighting between too many different groups. Could we have achieved independence if we hadn't been seen as much of a threat if the King hadn't been supported ?

There was a rebellion in the North around that time where both settlers and native irish fought alongside against the crown and only later were the roles exagerated.

Also the whole "to hell or to connaught" thing was a little exagerated since most Irish didn't move.

clonycavanman

BrianCalgary must be a bit puzzled by the very even-handed, generous posts made on this topic, some even extending to an understanding judgement of massacre; provided the victims are irish and the perpetrators are angry. Brian must be wondering how we ever had the gumption to take our own country back.
I'll restore the balence . Cromwell's massacres at Droheda and smewhere else were cliches of my childhood, not taught at school that I can recall, but from parents and other adults as examples of past injustice. Now a well read bore, I have the following understanding of the bitterness borne towards Cromwell, in reverse order;

clonycavanman

(to continue).
Massacres of prisoners,clergy and townspeople were not war as usual for the time, were morally condemned by many and had not been practiced during the English and Scottish civil wars except for the massacre of the 'Irish Harlots' (camp followers of the gaelic-speaking Highland army) after Montrose's defeat at Philiphaugh.
Murders of priests on sight were practiced and -as the catholic church survived this persecution- long preserved in folk memory as 'martyrs'.
The greatest cause of post-Cromwell bitterness was the massive confiscation of land after the war; except in Connaught which was not coveted enough. Antonia Fraser estimated that in the century prior to 1660 two thirds of Ireland was transferred to the ownership of English and Scottish immigrants. By the act of settlement the 'Irish' were ordered to leave specified eastern counties and go to Connaught. Elsewhere the land was merely given to roundhead soldiery. For subsistance farmers this meant famine. For the educated and affluent it meant poverty or exile abroad as a mercenary in the service of the Kings of France or Austria. Those ex-pat communities kept the flame of Irish hope alive. We were three hundred years reversing the Tudor/Stewart/Cromwellian dispossessions.

The_Conductor

It took over 300 years to reclaim *some* of our possessions, and even on our independence our government were made to pay restitutions for what was considered government property (and agree to leave ports and other vital infrastructure in English hands (commonly known as the Treaty Ports etc).

There is an interesting battle ongoing in Co.Cork regarding a Tudor Castle and estate that passed to the state in lieu of death duties in the early '70s. Two parties, the a family member of the original holder of the land over 300 years ago, and a family member of the protestant family who held the property are in dispute over the ownership. (Its a nice tract of land out the Douglas direction, considered prime building land).

Death duties were the weapon of choice exercised by the Irish government to expropriate land from these erstwhile estates over the last 100 years (think of all parks and woodland in state hands- from Glenveigh in Donegal down the whole length of the country- another that comes to mind is Johnstown Castle and Estate in Wexford, Moorepark in Cork, Lots of land in Clare/Limerick, Athenry demense etc etc....

What would be really interesting is if members of the original families banded together and tried to reclaim their familial lands. In my own family's case- we eventually bought them back about 10 years ago, reversing the diminished fortunes of their then incumbents.

Hermione*

In looking at Cromwell, one of the the most important things to remember is that the 1640s saw the greatest demographic upheaval in Irish history, far greater than the Famine. That's how my lecturer put it to us. The Catholic Confederates of Ireland had used the Civil War in England as an oppurtunity for their own advancement, and as in 1916, many English did not like the fact that 1) the Irish/ Old English had tried to take advantage of the situation and 2) most political dealings the Confederates had were with the King, and Cromwell had just defeated the King.

mike65

he actually had to chill out

Now theres's phrase I never thought I'd see on a Cromwell thread.

Mike.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cromwell was a great man, how dare people try and denigrate such a democrat and pacifist!!

BrianCalgary

Thanks to all. This has been a fascinating discussion. I am curently reading "The Rebels of Ireland" by Edward Ruthurford. He shows cromwell from the Irish Catholic, Irish Protestant and English Puritan viewpoint. We were taught the English view in Canadian School which showed Cromwell as a founder of modern democracy. Ireland was never mentioned.

Yes, siege warfare at the tiem justified Cromwells actions at Drogheda, however for a puritan to go against biblical, love your enemy, philosophy Cromwell's light diminishes. It diminishes further with his slaughter of priests and other civilians.

clonycavanman, I'm glad the Irish had the gumption to get their country back. As the offspring of Irish parents I love my ancestral country and find the whole history quite sad. As I see different Irismen more interested in their own gain as opposed to the good of all the Irish.

Dub in Glasgo; is that tongue-in-cheek?

Happy Easter all.

A Dub in Glasgo

BrianCalgary wrote:

Dub in Glasgo; is that tongue-in-cheek?

Yep

ODS

Anybody else ever consider the irony that were it not for 'Crumbwell', Ireland would have been left without its quintessential irish dish, bacon and cabbage, as it was his troops who brought over the first cabbages - landing them in Ringsend?

A bit like the other oddety that it was another englishman, Walter Raleigh, who was responsible for introducing the potato

Mick86

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'm curious how Cromwell is taught in Irish History Classes.

Sort of a cross between Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and Pol Pot. But not as nice as those three.

But that's not unusual. All English leaders were the anti-christ in Irish history.

flogen

I saw some Documentary about Cromwell, on UKTV or something, and it detailed his entire "career" or life; it's worth noting that most good Cromwell did for England was within England etc., and so it wouldnt be thought in Ireland anyway, some may say his actions in Drogheda were good for England/Britain but obviously they weren't for Ireland.

He is seen in Education as a vilain of sorts, and it's understandable, I can't remember if the link between the protestant murders is made, though... worth checking up... Of course it's still valid to make the connection and see the man as evil, after all.

The Documentary I watched (which due to the admiration it was showing I expected to skip the whole Ireland thing) made no bones about his actions in Ireland and didn't justify it in any way.

ScottishDanny

Here's my 2 cents
The guy was a religious fundamentalist maniac, a kind of protestant ayatollah. "God told me to do it". He fought with everyone and anyone. One poster said that he never brought trouble to England! (English Civil War anyone?) He was ruthless against the Irish as is well known, and the Scots and the Royalist English. Some English Academics call him the father of democracy which is crazy.
Groups such as the diggers and the levellers took his rise to power to mean they could take over unworked land from landowners and work it themselves in communes - so he killed them all (Hey we're common but some are more equal than others). He became 'Lord Protector' of England and the title (de facto King) passed on to his son (doesn't sound very republican or democratic to me).
He should be remembered as the father of the White Slave Trade ("Those who were not put to the sword were put in chains, bound for the barbados"). His 'mission' to Ireland was not inspired by the 1641 massacres but by 'Ye goode booke' "And David went forth and slew the red-haired race."
And enough about 'well at the time that was common', you can't get on a high horse of evangelical righteousness and then commit acts of genocide whether its the 21st century, 17th or the old testament.
Phew! finished.

quickbeam

A question on University Challenge recently (or was it Mastermind ...?) mentioned that he allowed the Jews back to Britain after their exile 300+ years before by Edward I. If true, it's about the only decent thing that can be said about him.

Father of democracy? That would be Simon de Montfort who was actually able to control a king without killing him! If Cromwell had a bit of intellegence he would have found a way around Charles I without resorting to execution.

ScottishDanny

Its true that he didn't bring his wrath upon the jews, Simon Schama (Prominent Right of centre Jewish Historian) uses this as evidence of what a great guy he was. I wonder if this was because Jews at that time lent him money for his war effort? As Jews were not allowed to own assets such as land they made their money from loans. Cromwell was known to have mismanaged the economy hence the granting of confiscated Irish land to his soldiers in lieu of wages.

von Bismarck

I'm down in good old Wexford and for some reason he is, in a way, celebrated here eg.places and housing estates are named after him.

This is done despite the fact that he murdered so many of us!!

WHY? I just don't get it.

xxx jack

cromwell was the biggest wanker to ever set foot in this country

Mad Finn

If the OP is still around and wants some balanced reportage on Cromwell then there was a revisionist book written about 10 years ago by an Irish historian called 'Cromwell: an honourable enemy' which put into context his behaviour in Ireland.

Apparently, and I would not allow myself to buy the tripe but I did see a TV promo documnetary for it, his point was that Cromwell was acting within the rules of war at the time which said that if you besieged a town you had to offer them the chance to surrender and if they did, the garrison was allowed to march off wherever it pleased. If they refused and lost then they could all be bumped off once it was over.

Big deal. The guy was still a religous fundamentalist maniac who preached democracy yet replaced the monarchy with a nepotistic dictatorship that was so loathed by the English people that within a few years of his death they brought back the beheaded King's son and restored him to the monarchy. They then went after and executed or jailed just about everybody who was responsible for the beheading of Charles I and also, and this is the bit that usually isn't taught in Ireland, the mob actually dug up Cromwell's skeleton and hung it from the gibbet in public to demonstrate their distaste for everything he stood for.

Then they had a ball, re-opening the theatres which he had closed, re-instated the celebration of festivals, reopened the taverns and generally indulging in the excesses of life that had been denied them during a period of religious austerity.

Bit like the Celtic Tiger after we found out about Bishop Casey, Micheal Cleary and all those paedophile priests.

BTW not much has been heard of that 'Cromwell was a nice guy really' historian since.

BrianCalgary

Thanks for the info Madfinn.