Cromwell in Ireland

zaister

Anybody know anything about the new series on Oliver Cromwell in Ireland that's supposed to be going out in September? I think it's high time RTE tackled this subject.

dresden8

Wait until McArmalite sinks his teeth into it.

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

Wait until McArmalite sinks his teeth into it.

I guess this will either be a fine example of the brutality and evilness of the British Empire, or a typical West Brit revisionist sham

I wonder if there will be a documentary on the 1641 massacre?

zaister

Maybe, but going on the trailer it looks like this documentary is going to have large-scale drama re-enactments - battle scenes, massacres etc. I wonder who gets to play Cromwell

Fratton Fred

zaister wrote: »

Maybe, but going on the trailer it looks like this documentary is going to have large-scale drama re-enactments - battle scenes, massacres etc. I wonder who gets to play Cromwell

aahh, its a drame then, not a documentary.

Judging by his latest remarks about the Scots, maybe Jeremy Paxman will be playing Cromwell:D

The trouble with a Drama, is that they will somehow try to get love interests in and show the human side which may well detract from reality. I mean, do you really think William Wallace slept with the Queen's sister?

boneless

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aahh, its a drame then, not a documentary.

Judging by his latest remarks about the Scots, maybe Jeremy Paxman will be playing Cromwell:D

The trouble with a Drama, is that they will somehow try to get love interests in and show the human side which may well detract from reality. I mean, do you really think William Wallace slept with the Queen's sister?

Mel Gibson wouldn't lie. I mean, look at The Passion....:p

As far as I know, the series on Cromwell is a documentary with dramatic scenes included. Oh, and the 1641 massacres were possibly not as clear cut as they have been represented in the writings of the day. Without trivialising the deaths of many, there is evidence (if the documents are examined) of the tales being hyped up and interspersed with tales from Bohemia to rally forces in England against James as much as anything else.

Fratton Fred

boneless wrote: »

Mel Gibson wouldn't lie. I mean, look at The Passion....:p

As far as I know, the series on Cromwell is a documentary with dramatic scenes included. Oh, and the 1641 massacres were possibly not as clear cut as they have been represented in the writings of the day. Without trivialising the deaths of many, there is evidence (if the documents are examined) of the tales being hyped up and interspersed with tales from Bohemia to rally forces in England against James as much as anything else.

1641 and Drogheda were probably both hyped up by very early day spin doctors i would say.

it would be interesting to see a historian really look into it though and try and get the truth, if anyone wants the truth that is.

dresden8

Truth?

Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs Fred. Revisionist scum.:p

boneless

Fratton Fred wrote: »

1641 and Drogheda were probably both hyped up by very early day spin doctors i would say.

it would be interesting to see a historian really look into it though and try and get the truth, if anyone wants the truth that is.

As far as I am aware Professor Tom Bartlett of UCD is at present researching the period in connection with his history of military revolution and innovation in Ireland. I know he covered the period in a lecture I attended and alluded to the possibility of his research going deeper at some stage.

zaister

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aahh, its a drame then, not a documentary.

Judging by his latest remarks about the Scots, maybe Jeremy Paxman will be playing Cromwell:D

The trouble with a Drama, is that they will somehow try to get love interests in and show the human side which may well detract from reality. I mean, do you really think William Wallace slept with the Queen's sister?

It's definitely not a drama. According to all the news reports it's a documentary with dramatic scenes. A 2 x 1 hour series apparently. The presenter is a guy called Micheal O Siochru who has just brought out a book on the subject.

Fratton Fred

There is a review of the book in the times.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_reviews/article4540922.ece

To be honest, the review doesn't sound like there is too much in the way of "shocking new evidence". Might be worth a read but the guy is obviously a West Brit revisionist though

guinnessdrinker

The series might be interesting and will provoke debate but the Times reviewer says that book is dismayingly badly written, not a good sign.

McArmalite

dresden8 wrote: »

Wait until McArmalite sinks his teeth into it.

My reputation proceeds me

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess this will either be a fine example of the brutality and evilness of the British Empire, or a typical West Brit revisionist sham

I wonder if there will be a documentary on the 1641 massacre?

Hopefully it will be "a fine example of the brutality and evilness of the British Empire " and hopefully some of our british friends will be able to accept that though I'll be doubtful .

As for the alleged massacre of 1641, the whole thing was blown out of proportion by English propagandists. The inevitable backlash by the Irish to give the planters a taste of their own medicine probaly only numbered a few thousand. Of the personnell killed, it's not really possible to establish if their were combatants or civilains. However as stated the whole thing was blown out of preportion by English propagandists of the day, tens of thousands killed , fellas roasted over fires like a barbaque, babies cut out of pregnant women etc

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

My reputation proceeds me

Hopefully it will be "a fine example of the brutality and evilness of the British Empire " and hopefully some of our british friends will be able to accept that though I'll be doubtful .

As for the alleged massacre of 1641, the whole thing was blown out of proportion by English propagandists. The inevitable backlash by the Irish to give the planters a taste of their own medicine probaly only numbered a few thousand. Of the personnell killed, it's not really possible to establish if their were combatants or civilains. However as stated the whole thing was blown out of preportion by English propagandists of the day, tens of thousands killed , fellas roasted over fires like a barbaque, babies cut out of pregnant women etc

does it not occur to you that both events are hyped up as propaganda?

boneless

I just remembered where I read the most honest and horrific account of the taking of Drogheda and Wexford... it was Oliver Cromwells own reports to Parliament ! He didn't try to cover up the fact there was a massacre.

Fratton Fred

boneless wrote: »

I just remembered where I read the most honest and horrific account of the taking of Drogheda and Wexford... it was Oliver Cromwells own reports to Parliament ! He didn't try to cover up the fact there was a massacre.

The fact that there was a "massacre" (By todays standards)is beyond doubt. Where I believe the propaganda comes in, is who was massacred.

It was commone practice in the 17th century for a besieging army to offer terms to the defending garrison. If this was refused then no quarter was given and all the defenders would be put to the sword.

The propaganda though tells of innocent people being murdered but most historians now agree that Drogheda was all but empty of civilians by the time Cromwell's army attacked.

Cromwell himself would also have overplayed the "Massacre" as a warning to other cities, scare tactics if you like, to try and make them surrender easier.

boneless

Fred, I agree he "garnished the lily" a bit in his reports to London to justify his appeal for funds to continue the campaign. Like what was referred to recently as "sexing up" the reports of WMD's in Iraq. But I worked on a number of test excavations in Drogheda a while ago and on one archaeological dig. There were civilian casualities in many of the sites.

We uncovered skeletons of women and children with definate sword and other blunt trauma wounds to the head and neck areas which were perimortem. The dating evidence was also suggestive of the period in question. I agree this does not fully support a theory of a wholesale massacre of the general population but we were surprised at the numbers found in the areas we were digging.

The inference I drew was the historical (written and oral) evidence was slowly been propped up by the archaeological evidence. Watch this space.

Fratton Fred

boneless wrote: »

We uncovered skeletons of women and children with definate sword and other blunt trauma wounds to the head and neck areas which were perimortem. The dating evidence was also suggestive of the period in question. I agree this does not fully support a theory of a wholesale massacre of the general population but we were surprised at the numbers found in the areas we were digging.

The inference I drew was the historical (written and oral) evidence was slowly been propped up by the archaeological evidence. Watch this space.

That's interesting, I thought archaeological evidence was pointing in the other direction. I will indeed watch this space:)

boneless

While the numbers of individuals are not great the trend is growing the more building work is allowing excavations. Although the "recession" will mean we will have to watch the space for a little while longer than I hoped...;)

McArmalite

boneless wrote: »

Fred, I agree he "garnished the lily" a bit in his reports to London to justify his appeal for funds to continue the campaign. Like what was referred to recently as "sexing up" the reports of WMD's in Iraq. But I worked on a number of test excavations in Drogheda a while ago and on one archaeological dig. There were civilian casualities in many of the sites.

We uncovered skeletons of women and children with definate sword and other blunt trauma wounds to the head and neck areas which were perimortem. The dating evidence was also suggestive of the period in question. I agree this does not fully support a theory of a wholesale massacre of the general population but we were surprised at the numbers found in the areas we were digging.

The inference I drew was the historical (written and oral) evidence was slowly been propped up by the archaeological evidence. Watch this space.

Very interesting boneless, good man yourself.

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aahh, its a drame then, not a documentary.

Judging by his latest remarks about the Scots, maybe Jeremy Paxman will be playing Cromwell:D

The trouble with a Drama, is that they will somehow try to get love interests in and show the human side which may well detract from reality. I mean, do you really think William Wallace slept with the Queen's sister?

I vote for Michael O'leary to play Cromwell.

just finished reading

BOOK - To Hell or Barbados, An Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland.
By Sean O'Callaghan
http://globalgenealogy.com/countries/ireland/resources/080638.htm
it is a good book on the subject.

It gives some good information on the sale of Irish and English slaves to the west Indies, Barbados and the Americas by Cromwell and those who came after him.
I have not seen much on the history of this slave trade elsewhere.
Some doubt if it ever happened.
The sadest part of the book was the account of the what was left of Irish and scots slves in Barbados(the Red legs) and what a bad state that community are in today

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The fact that there was a "massacre" (By todays standards)is beyond doubt. Where I believe the propaganda comes in, is who was massacred.

It was commone practice in the 17th century for a besieging army to offer terms to the defending garrison. If this was refused then no quarter was given and all the defenders would be put to the sword.

The propaganda though tells of innocent people being murdered but most historians now agree that Drogheda was all but empty of civilians by the time Cromwell's army attacked.

Cromwell himself would also have overplayed the "Massacre" as a warning to other cities, scare tactics if you like, to try and make them surrender easier.

I agree you have to look at history by the standards of the time and the customs of war of the day.

Almost all history is spin.

It was in Cromwell's interest talk up how hard he was on the Irish in parliament.

Also Cromwell was in very bad health by the time he came to Ireland and this affected his thinking and how he acted.

Ireland was only one of many problems Cromwell had at the time.

boneless

McArmalite wrote: »

Very interesting boneless, good man yourself.

Although I am a Socialist Republican, I would not use any evidence uncovered to further any cause apart from that of adding to the historical record and the science of archaeology. We can learn from the past but we don't have to dwell there too long .

mikemac

Just to update the OP, this new two part program will be shown on RTE at 10:15pm and starts on Tuesday, September 9th

Dates for the diary folks

Erin Go Brath

Belfast wrote: »

I agree you have to look at history by the standards of the time and the customs of war of the day.

Almost all history is spin.

It was in Cromwell's interest talk up how hard he was on the Irish in parliament.

Also Cromwell was in very bad health by the time he came to Ireland and this affected his thinking and how he acted.

Ireland was only one of many problems Cromwell had at the time.

This ignorance of this post beggars belief! :eek: Cromwell was a mass murderer! Cromwell and his ironsides slaugher and indiscriminate killings at Drogheda and Wexford were totally beyond contempt. Why make excuses for that piece of human filth? :mad:

Winston Churchill described the impact of Cromwell on Anglo-Irish relations: "upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. 'Hell or Connaught' were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred 'The Curse of Cromwell on you.' ... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'."

Cromwell is still a figure of hatred in Ireland, his name is associated with massacre, religious persecution, and mass dispossession of the Catholic community.

Erin Go Brath

micmclo wrote: »

Just to update the OP, this new two part program will be shown on RTE at 10:15pm and starts on Tuesday, September 9th

Dates for the diary folks

Its the Hidden History series.
I hope they do a better job than last years very controversial Murders at Coolacrease programme. There was a thread here if i remember correctly.

Fratton Fred

I caught the end of something on BBC last night which had a bit about cromwell.

I didn't realise his head was on a post outside the Palace of Westminster for 20 years until it blew off in a storm and was "Stolen" by one of the palace guards :eek:

I bet that was lovely

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I caught the end of something on BBC last night which had a bit about cromwell.

I didn't realise his head was on a post outside the Palace of Westminster for 20 years until it blew off in a storm and was "Stolen" by one of the palace guards :eek:

I bet that was lovely

Yup. That is true. I never remember being told at school that when the English restored the monarchy, the mob was so pissed off with the way the Puritans had screwed up the country that they exhumed Cromwell's body and hung it from the gibbet.

You've got to admire the innate sense of rebellion of the English!!!

I think we should do something similar with that old crook Haughey.

Just as an aside, I find it fascinating the way invaders always invoke the blessings of God on their massacres. It wasn't Cromwell's soldiers who killed the people at Drogheda; it was God.

"A righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches" was how Cromwell put it. Just as Walter Raleigh wrote in a letter to Queen Elizabeth how a massacre he had committed in Kerry how "Thus it has pleased the Lord of Hosts to deliver your enemies."

Bit of a dodgy character, this God.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

Just as Walter Raleigh wrote in a letter to Queen Elizabeth how a massacre he had committed in Kerry how "Thus it has pleased the Lord of Hosts to deliver your enemies."

Bit of a dodgy character, this God.

It was Arthur "Lord Grey De Wilton" actually who wrote that. I believe there is also some debate that Raleigh was even at Smerwick as the Military records at the time indicate he was in Tipparary.

But yeah, God does get blamed for a lot of things, just as Allah does today.

dresden8

I don't know why McArmalite hates Cromwell.

He was a republican who overthrew the British government and executed the king of England.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and all that.

Jimbo

dresden8 wrote: »

I don't know why McArmalite hates Cromwell.

He was a republican who overthrew the British government and executed the king of England.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and all that.

Only before slaughtering 500,000 Irish people.

You got to respect Bertie Ahern for having the balls to walk out of Robin Cooks office after seeing a painting of Cromwell on the wall.