Concepts of Cromwell

brianthebard

When people talk about Cromwell, what is it they think he represents? I was chatting to a bookshop owner who felt that if he had been around in the 1910s/20s he would have been fighting for the IRA. Many of the facts that we take for granted, such as the massacre of Drogheda, "to hell or to connaught", etc, are either grossly exagerrated or just wrong. So is it possible (without invoking the term revisionism, which seems to be a dirty word here) to reconsider Cromwell's role in Irish history?

Jackie laughlin

Brian,
You raise an interesting question. Don't worry about being called a "revisionist"; it's a badge of honour!

The bookseller might be right in that Cromwell was a republican in the simple sense of his being opposed to monarchy. However, "republican" in Ireland is very fluid in its meaning. Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein, was a monarchist!

Cromwell's bloody march around Ireland and the Irish who both fought him and supported him were taking part in an english civil war.

Snickers Man

Some guy wrote a book a while back called "Cromwell, an honourable enemy". didnt read it myself but saw the accomanying documentary.

From what I could gather, the argument went something like he hanged some of his soldiers who had stolen food from local peasants to ingratiate himself with the locals and what happened at Drogheda was par for the course during sieges on the continent at the time.

So he was really a nice guy.

My arse.

His Irish expedition was indeed motivated by the wider context of a Royalist rebellion against his commonwealth at home. Somewhat similar to the contemptible argument we hear nowadays that "we have to fight overseas to avoid having to fight at home".

His theft of land and expulsion of existing owners and tenants to make way for his own soldiers and supporters was utterly unjustifiable.

And the fact remains that he was a sectarian purveyor of pillage and massacre. what the hell sort of "republic" did he leave behind here?

The guy was a toilet.

Zambia

Reading a bit on this at Present , Cromwell suffered a mental breakdown prior to the invasion of Ireland. Truth be told he should have Probably been let retire at that piont however he was not.

The result being a zealot was set on "Loyalist" Ireland (odd that) and proceeded to burn his way across Ireland.

In some cases like Drogheda he sent terms across stating "Surrender or there will be no quarter" and basically in the end did what he said. This does not excuse the invasion as a whole by any means.

Cromwell basically sacked Ireland considering its population sub life forms. In the end banishing all gentry involved in the loyalist cause to Connaught and as said installing protestant landlords in the other three counties.

He also is responsible for the enforced slavery of approx 50,000 Irish people to the west indies Barbados in most cases. Where they suffered horribly working on tobacco farms till sugar was brought in they then worked on that.

In his own mind at the time he was probably working under what he thought was the right thing to do. But in the wider sense yes he was a Toilet that damaged the relationship between Ireland and England beyond repair in the forseeable future.

Fratton Fred

what if Cromwell did not invade Ireland? I believe confederate chiefs were offered land in return for adding their armies to the Royalists, would we then have seen an Irish dominated England? was it a case of dog eat dog and the English dog won?

It seems to be pretty well accepted that Cromwells's tactics, whilst exceptionally bloody, were pretty standard siege warfare tactics of the time. "You have one hour to run, if you don't we will give no quarter". This apparantly was why so many sieges went on for so long, because the defenders knew there was no point giving in. I've also read that there is good evidence to suppose that all women and children were allowed to flee before the siege, so the massacre may have just been one army destroying another.

However, if you want to find a good example of "England's bloody Oppression of Ireland" as part of the 800 years debate, Cromwell's swift and bloody conquest is a great starting point. Cromwell did not look down on the Irish so much, as Catholics in general, it just so happened Ireland was a Catholic country.

Cromwell was no hero though and it could be argued that if he had the means, he would have been shipping catholics off to gas chambers long before Hitler ever thought of it.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

what if Cromwell did not invade Ireland? I believe confederate chiefs were offered land in return for adding their armies to the Royalists, would we then have seen an Irish dominated England? was it a case of dog eat dog and the English dog won?

I'm no expert on this period, but I believe that the argument that the Irish would have taken over England is facile in the extreme. So far as I know, the argument of the Catholic Confederates, and later the Jacobites, was that Ireland would not be bound to the new regimes brought in by the treasonous and violent overthrow of British monarchs such as Charles I and James II.

If you guys wanted to install a joyless repressive regime dominated by religious fundamentalists then fair play to you, but we didn't have to go along.

As I remember, the english people were so disillusioned by Cromwell's rule after enduring it for ten years or so that when he died they kicked out his son, brought back the monarchy, dug up the old bastard's skeleton and hung it from the gibbet, then went after everybody involved in the execution of Charles I and put them to death in the horrible depraved way for which they are famous.

Then in the 1660s they opened up the theatres, which the ayatollahs had closed, put on the dirtiest plays in the canon of English literature ("Tis pity she's a whore" being an example) and generally had a ball, drinking and shagging their way to heaven on earth, following the example of the new king Charles II who had at least 14 children, none of them legitimate, by several mistresses.

Now they were the real swinging 60s.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

I'm no expert on this period, but I believe that the argument that the Irish would have taken over England is facile in the extreme. So far as I know, the argument of the Catholic Confederates, and later the Jacobites, was that Ireland would not be bound to the new regimes brought in by the treasonous and violent overthrow of British monarchs such as Charles I and James II.

I used an extreme point to promote debate, it is a huge what if in my opinion. That is all. What if the confederates had not sided with the Royalists at all, Cromwell would most robably not have come to Ireland at all and history may have been very different.

Snickers Man wrote:

As I remember, the english people were so disillusioned by Cromwell's rule after enduring it for ten years or so that when he died they kicked out his son, brought back the monarchy, dug up the old bastard's skeleton and hung it from the gibbet, then went after everybody involved in the execution of Charles I and put them to death in the horrible depraved way for which they are famous.

Then in the 1660s they opened up the theatres, which the ayatollahs had closed, put on the dirtiest plays in the canon of English literature ("Tis pity she's a whore" being an example) and generally had a ball, drinking and shagging their way to heaven on earth, following the example of the new king Charles II who had at least 14 children, none of them legitimate, by several mistresses.

Now they were the real swinging 60s.

yeah, exactly. Cromwell's rule was oppressive and when he came to Ireland (relutantly if I recall) he brought that rule with him. It's just a shame a cure for all those STD's had not been discovered then, would have prevented a few cases of blindness and insanity!!

Shutuplaura

Cromwells military actions may have been par for the course for the 1640's but his victory was so complete and compelling that his intervention could with almost complete certainty be called the most significant in the countries history. A large part of the old Gaelic nobility was swept away and a new ascendancy put in its place. Patterns of landholding, wealth and patronage were altered and the fabric of society changed massively. His name is associated with that change which is why its mud still in Ireland.

I love the scene in the film to kill a king where he is praying with some other govenment henchmen after a meeting and all three at different times open their eyes to check if they can stop. Classic human touch.

Jackie laughlin

So 17th century royalists were into lewd entertainment, drinking and shagging, while the republicans were joyless puritans. Sounds like little has changed - in Ireland at least!

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

So 17th century royalists were into lewd entertainment, drinking and shagging, while the republicans were joyless puritans. Sounds like little has changed - in Ireland at least!

Your drinking in the wrong places....

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote:

Your drinking in the wrong places....

Now I know why I was told to steer clear of the republican pubs:D

Jackie laughlin

A republican pervert = someone more interested in sex than murder!

brianthebard

Snickers Man wrote:

Some guy wrote a book a while back called "Cromwell, an honourable enemy". didnt read it myself but saw the accomanying documentary.

From what I could gather, the argument went something like he hanged some of his soldiers who had stolen food from local peasants to ingratiate himself with the locals and what happened at Drogheda was par for the course during sieges on the continent at the time.

Well, what happened at Drogheda was indeed standard for a siege. Another problem arises however when Irish historians claim that X amount was killed (I think they say 30,000) when there wasn't even that many people in the whole town!

His Irish expedition was indeed motivated by the wider context of a Royalist rebellion against his commonwealth at home. Somewhat similar to the contemptible argument we hear nowadays that "we have to fight overseas to avoid having to fight at home".

His theft of land and expulsion of existing owners and tenants to make way for his own soldiers and supporters was utterly unjustifiable.

And the fact remains that he was a sectarian purveyor of pillage and massacre. what the hell sort of "republic" did he leave behind here?

The guy was a toilet.

The fact is Irish lords were seen as strong enough to be able to launch a counter attack in favour of the royalist faction. In that sense the Irish were treated the same way as English royalists and catholics, so in many ways the arguments against Cromwell begin to look suspect in that context. Furthermore the confiscation of land also happened in England. I don't believe that he was sectarian since he himself belonged to the puritans, who were a sect in England as well.

Finally, FF suggests there could have been an Irish dominated England. While it probably wouldn't have happened there was an overwhelming, paranoid fear that Catholics would retake the monarchy and undo the reformation in England, and in that situation Ireland represents the Catholic stronghold in Britain.

Jackie laughlin

Quite so but if the truth had been told to the people we might have been spared some "republican" mayhem by Irish "patriots". Myths are important to "patriots".

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote:

A republican pervert = someone more interested in sex than murder!

A Birt pervert = A british soldier who likes to rape an Iraqi before murdering them. Allright Jackie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Quite so but if the truth had been told to the people we might have been spared some "republican" mayhem by Irish "patriots". Myths are important to "patriots".

Much of this so called new found "truth" regarding Cromwell has it's source in the book - Cromwell, An Honourable Enemy recently published.

In the journal, History Ireland, it stated "The historical evidence presented by Reilly is not convincing. He frequently refers to 'respective partisan nationalist elements' who are reluctant to accept 'the rehabilitated version of Oliver Cromwell' who was 'merely one in a long line of English oppressors'. The author's style is often superficial, volatile, tendentious and partisan in the face of known historical evidence. The book adds little to our understanding of the actions of Cromwell at Drogheda or at Wexford. His general thesis that Cromwell may well have had no moral right to take the lives at Drogheda or Wexford 'but he certainly had the law firmly on his side' does not stand up to examination. There is a need for a new book on the Irish Cromwellian campaign but unfortunately this is not it. "

Tom Reilly the author, statement on it obviously shows his aganda, i.e. a one man crusade to enlighten the ignorant masses about the real truths of Irish history - " I feel that many historians in Ireland are not ready yet for 'an honourable' Cromwell - nor indeed are the people of Ireland. I thought that I would change the history books and public opinion about this much maligned historical figure by publishing the truth about Cromwell's Irish campaign. The reaction - among the under forties on the whole -was good, but among historians and the over forties it was bad. They can't seem to accept that an amateur could discover such a fundamental flaw in Irish history ie that neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign. "

eoin5

McArmalite wrote:

A Birt pervert = A british soldier who likes to rape an Iraqi before murdering them. Allright Jackie

I thought a Birt pervert would be Ernie :P

Shutuplaura

"They can't seem to accept that an amateur could discover such a fundamental flaw in Irish history ie that neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign. "

I read the book and I have to say that on the whole i thought it was pretty interesting and convincing to a point. I do think that it is a wee bit naive though in that Cromwell's actions in Ireland are also judged in the light of events after he left the country. The Cromwellian plantation was a disaster for much of the countries elite who found themselves dispossessed and replaced by soldier settlers from the new model army. This had a knock on effect in areas such as patronage of the Galeic intellectual life. Basically the whole social order of large parts of the country was fundamentally altered forever. For instance, Brehon laws were still used in parts the country and gaelic poets and musicians still found employment in many big hoses after 1603. This wasn't the case really after the 1640's. So to say that Cromwell was an okay guy because he only killed english royalist soldiers in Drogheda is missing the point completely.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Quite so but if the truth had been told to the people we might have been spared some "republican" mayhem by Irish "patriots". Myths are important to "patriots".

Myths often have their basis in facts though. There was no RTE in the 1640's so word of mouth becomes an important source of information - if not the only source of information. And people as we all know love exaggerating, playing on peoples fears (and people were probably **** scared of another army coming anywhere near them) and just generally saying the worst about someone. This, along with the results of his actions - the plantations and deportations etc would easily explain why he is such a monster in the collective folk memory.

Carrigart Exile

Snickers Man wrote:

I'm no expert on this period, but I believe that the argument that the Irish would have taken over England is facile in the extreme. So far as I know, the argument of the Catholic Confederates, and later the Jacobites, was that Ireland would not be bound to the new regimes brought in by the treasonous and violent overthrow of British monarchs such as Charles I and James II.

If you guys wanted to install a joyless repressive regime dominated by religious fundamentalists then fair play to you, but we didn't have to go along.

As I remember, the english people were so disillusioned by Cromwell's rule after enduring it for ten years or so that when he died they kicked out his son, brought back the monarchy, dug up the old bastard's skeleton and hung it from the gibbet, then went after everybody involved in the execution of Charles I and put them to death in the horrible depraved way for which they are famous.

Then in the 1660s they opened up the theatres, which the ayatollahs had closed, put on the dirtiest plays in the canon of English literature ("Tis pity she's a whore" being an example) and generally had a ball, drinking and shagging their way to heaven on earth, following the example of the new king Charles II who had at least 14 children, none of them legitimate, by several mistresses.

Now they were the real swinging 60s.

am starting to take to this Charles II:D

brianthebard

Just to mix it up a bit more, does anyone who posted here think that Cromwell would have invaded Ireland/killed as many people if the majority of Irish people at the time had supported the parliament instead of the crown?

Jackie laughlin

I too read THE book but it is not a significant work, breaking the new ground which its author claims. The truth of the Cromwellian period was known to the better educated classes but denied to the Irish people. You see, if we were to believe the 800-year fight for Irish freedom nonsense, we couldn't possibly be told that Cromwell was fighting an English civil war in Ireland.

Snickers Man

brianthebard wrote:

Well, what happened at Drogheda was indeed standard for a siege. Another problem arises however when Irish historians claim that X amount was killed (I think they say 30,000) when there wasn't even that many people in the whole town!

Bit like the massacre of Protestants in 1641 that was part of Cromwell's motivation for his campaign in Ireland. Exaggerated reports of massacres which did indeed take place inflamed passions in Protestant England and caused Cromwell to describe his own massacre at Drogheda as "a righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches"

brianthebard wrote:

the Irish were treated the same way as English royalists and catholics, so in many ways the arguments against Cromwell begin to look suspect in that context.

What are you saying? The fact that he committed lots of other atrocities elsewhere is a mitigating factor for his atrocities here????

.

brianthebard wrote:

I don't believe that he was sectarian since he himself belonged to the puritans, who were a sect in England as well.

What???
That's a bit like saying a white supremacist is not a racist because he has his own race himself. That's bonkers!!

.

brianthebard wrote:

there was an overwhelming, paranoid fear that Catholics would retake the monarchy and undo the reformation in England, and in that situation Ireland represents the Catholic stronghold in Britain.

You're not saying that's justification, are you?

There was a paranoia in Germany about Jews controlling the country's finances via an international plot. Does that justify the holocaust?

Snickers Man

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You see, if we were to believe the 800-year fight for Irish freedom nonsense.

Socialist republican author Eamon McCann made exactly that point in a book written more than 30 years ago, that the various Irish uprisings against English/British rule over the centuries were completely different in terms of the motivations and indeed the nature of the people who supported them and that it is wrong to describe the struggle for Irish independence as one long continuous process.

Like the fact that the people who led the United Irishmen's republican uprising in Ulster were Presbyterians, the direct ancestors of those people who today support the DUP.

I think the notion of a continuous 800 year struggle for freedom is ridiculously over simplistic but I still think Cromwell was a c**t.

Mind you, so did the English people by the time he was finished with them.

Fratton Fred

If I'm reading you correctly, I think I have come to a similar conclusion. My thinking is that if a major event, such as the Peterloo Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre had happened in Ireland, it would have been part of the 800 years of struggle, when in reality, it was more connected to the universal sufferage cause than it was to Strongbow/Cromwell et al.

Where the political historians have had a field day, is putting different spin on events, such as Drogheda, 1641 etc.

btw, I think Cromwell was a c**t. he was an early day Nazi from what I can tell.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

If I'm reading you correctly, I think I have come to a similar conclusion. My thinking is that if a major event, such as the Peterloo Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_massacre had happened in Ireland, it would have been part of the 800 years of struggle, when in reality, it was more connected to the universal sufferage cause than it was to Strongbow/Cromwell et al.

It certainly would. It's perfectly natural that if somebody punches you on the nose, you think "Bastard"

If an Englishman punches me on the nose I might think "English bastard", although modern etiquette would probably deem this as racist of me. I must divorce completely the Englishness of my assailant from the fact that I have a right to think of him as a bastard. (you might think, mutatis mutandis, "Irish bastard" in corresponding circumstances)

The various English and Irish interests in the struggles for control of Ireland have changed down through the years as the economic, strategic and cultural situation has changed. Patrick Sarsfield had little in common politically with Wolfe Tone who had practically nothing in common with Daniel O'Connell, etc.

Most people who have more than a cursory knowledge of Irish history would accept that. Just about the only organisation that doesn't at the moment is the GAA which is quite happy to have one club named after a convicted killer of a Garda (Kerins O'Rahilly's) and another (Sarsfield's) named after Princess Diana's Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Uncle on the grounds that they are each inheritors of the same tradition, which of course they are not.

Yes folks, the great Sarsfield is the Great Great Great Great great Great Great Great Great uncle of the future king of England.

How cool is that!

Jackie laughlin

As the victim of the attack, you MIGHT think, "English bastard!" However, that might not be the significant adjective for YOU at the time. You might think, "Protestant bastard", "Catholic bastard", "upper class bastard", working class bastard", "culchie bastard" etc. etc.

The trick worked in Ireland was to fabricate a myth that all wrongs done in Ireland to ALL people in Ireland were done by the "Brits" to the Irish. The myth was then fed to the masses, the more stupid of them believed it right into adulthood, and the psychopaths among them joined the IRA.

I appreciate that information on Sarsfield. I'm off out to Lucan tonight to attack a pub in the name of freedom!

Snickers Man

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I appreciate that information on Sarsfield. I'm off out to Lucan tonight to attack a pub in the name of freedom!

He has more dodgy relatives than that.

Patrick Sarsfield's niece Charlotte Sarsfield married a chap called Vesey.
Their daughter Anne married into the Bingham family and her son was the firest Earl of Lucan.
He had two children, a son who was the second Earl of Lucan and who is the direct forebear of the scrote who tried to murder his wife but killed the nanny instead and then disappeared 30-odd years ago.
The daughter, Lady Lavinia Bingham married into the Spencer family and is the direct forebear of Lady Di. And by extension princes Wills and Harry.

Snickers Man

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The trick worked in Ireland was to fabricate a myth that all wrongs done in Ireland to ALL people in Ireland were done by the "Brits" to the Irish. The myth was then fed to the masses,

Greatly oversimplified. Only silly people believe that.

Just as some silly people think that the war in Iraq is all about "liberating" the Iraqi people.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

He has more dodgy relatives than that.

Patrick Sarsfield's niece Charlotte Sarsfield married a chap called Vesey.
Their daughter Anne married into the Bingham family and her son was the firest Earl of Lucan.
He had two children, a son who was the second Earl of Lucan and who is the direct forebear of the scrote who tried to murder his wife but killed the nanny instead and then disappeared 30-odd years ago.
The daughter, Lady Lavinia Bingham married into the Spencer family and is the direct forebear of Lady Di. And by extension princes Wills and Harry.

I recall that Lady Di was related to Lord Lucan. They believe he is dead now, but there are still people (The last one I believe was in New Zealand) who are accused of being the missing Lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bingham%2C_7th_Earl_of_Lucan

Jackie laughlin

It may be simplified and I may have been silly rather longer than you but I believed it until my late teens when I began reading independently.

When ireland gets her freedom, I'll release Lord Lucan!

Fratton Fred

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It may be simplified and I may have been silly rather longer than you but I believed it until my late teens when I began reading independently.

When ireland gets her freedom, I'll release Lord Lucan!

Have you got Shergar as well?