Atrocities in Ireland

paky

what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.

MyKeyG

Dem feckin Black and Tans!!! Animals I tells ya!!!

mattjack

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/23479-cromwell-revised-separating-myths-historical-reality.html


Cromwell Revised, Separating myths and Historical Reality


No one disputes Cromwell's forces committed atrocities and by commission Cromwell was responsible for those atrocities, but the reality is Cromwell forces massacred less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland, who were put to the sword.. Cromwell's forces actually killed more civilians in Bolton then Drogheda and nor did Cromwell authorise such atrocities.

celtictiger32

paky wrote: »

what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.

coming here..

who the fug

Putting Jedward on TV
The only way is Essex

Bannasidhe

mattjack wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/23479-cromwell-revised-separating-myths-historical-reality.html


Cromwell Revised, Separating myths and Historical Reality


No one disputes Cromwell's forces committed atrocities and by commission Cromwell was responsible for those atrocities, but the reality is Cromwell forces massacred less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland, who were put to the sword.. Cromwell's forces actually killed more civilians in Bolton then Drogheda and nor did Cromwell authorise such atrocities.

I would have to agree - Cromwell was here for 9 months and focused on Royalist garrisons rather then the native population except when they were working in alliance with Ormonde's Royalist forces.
There were indeed atrocities - but the man to look at is Henry Ireton, not Cromwell.

If, indeed Cromwell - as Lord Protector - was ultimately responsible for the actions of his appointed officials such as Ireton then I do find it strange that the Tudors, in particular Elizabeth, seem to get off lightly.

Dave Edwards wrote an excellent article on the use of martial law in Ireland by Tudor officials - yet that is rarely mentioned on threads like this. It always Cromwell, Cromwell, Cromwell and the Black and Tans.

Edwards on Sussex in the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor

Pre-emptive coercion

The Oxford English Dictionary defines martial law as ‘military government superseding ordinary law for a time’. A harsh reactive measure in periods of emergency, it confers powers of summary execution on government officials charged with confronting the enemies of the state. From the fourteenth century onwards, in regions subject to the crown of England, it appeared only in time of rebellion, and was only used against people who were actively engaged in revolt. However, in the middle years of the sixteenth century—during the mid-Tudor crisis, a time of profound economic, religious and political dislocation in England and Wales—it underwent a major transformation, and was reinvented as a pre-emptive measure by hard-pressed officials anxious to quell the growing threat of unrest. This technical alteration of martial law was a crucial development, a major addition to the crown’s capacity for repression. Henceforth dissent could be crushed before it progressed to full-blown insurrection. Persons suspected of holding oppositionist sympathies could legitimately be ‘disappeared’, lawfully executed without trial, purely on the grounds that they might enter into a treasonous conspiracy. Under the mid-Tudor monarchs, the Protestant Edward VI and the Catholic Mary I, the English state came closer to embracing despotism than ever before.
This novel pre-emptive version of martial law was soon in force in Ireland, introduced in 1556 by Queen Mary’s new chief governor, Lord Deputy Sussex. Ireland at this time provided a perfect breeding ground for the advance of royal draconianism, as the crown faced a genuine state of emergency. In Ulster the ongoing infiltration of Antrim and Down by the Scottish highland MacDonnells was causing grave concern, especially as Shane O’Neill had entered into an opportunistic alliance with them in order to consolidate his own position in the province. Equally disconcerting, in Leinster, along the borders of the Pale, the O’Mores and O’Connors were continuing successfully to resist the government’s attempts to establish an Anglo-Welsh colony—the Laois/Offaly plantation—in their territories. To cap it all, it was widely feared that a French invasion of Ireland was imminent.

Together, these factors provided Sussex with more than enough justification to introduce martial law—yet they are not enough to explain the peculiar zeal he displayed towards the measure, and continued to display after conditions had settled down. For one thing, as Ciarán Brady, an expert on his career, has put it, Lord Deputy Sussex had ‘a marked intolerance of dissent’. For another, Sussex was the first of a new type of Irish viceroy, the programmatic governor, declaring himself able to deliver a better, more cost-effective form of government in Ireland—a vow made necessary by the crown’s determination to reduce its Irish expenditure. Martial law offered him a way to keep security costs low, for it was alluringly cheap. It did not require a large army to be effective; all that was needed was a suitable crown representative—usually an army officer or a gentleman—who, armed with a commission of martial law and supported by a gang of followers, was willing to go forth into the Irish interior to cow the native lords into submission.

Commissioners of martial law did not have to be paid; rather, they were licensed to collect the profits of their work, being legally entitled to ‘traitor’s goods’ which amounted to a third of the movable goods and possessions of those they put to death. In turn, this acted as an incentive to slaughter: the more ‘suspected traitors’ the commissioners killed, the more traitors’ goods they and their followers received.

Sussex was enchanted by the opportunity martial law presented to privatise state coercion. Even when the London Privy Council denied him permission to extend its use beyond disaffected clansmen in Laois/Offaly and eastern Ulster to include all ‘shameless offenders’ whatsoever—a deliberately vague term—he pressed on regardless in direct defiance of its orders. In November 1556 he and his advisers on the Irish Council drafted a commission granting powers of de facto martial law to commissioners who were directed to target (a) tax offenders and (b) displaced wandering poor and unemployed. Both groups were to be executed without trial. For the first time in its history, martial law was to be used against ordinary peaceful subjects who were not even suspected of treason. And this from an administration that promised assimilationist reforms aimed at bringing the common law and ‘good government’ to the Irish.

Sussex’s liking for martial law initiated a new pattern of government that long outlasted him (he left office in 1563) in which the central executive attempted to prepare whole areas of the country for assimilation through the unlimited use of terror. In other words, regions were partly conquered by centrally-sanctioned aggressors before reforms of local society were attempted. To an extent Sussex’s successors in the chief governor’s office, his brothers-in-law Sir Henry Sidney and Sir William Fitzwilliam were his protégés in that they too were greatly enamoured of martial law which seemed so effective, so terrifying, so cheap. Hence, throughout the 1560s and ‘70s martial law became commonplace in Ireland. In all, in the twenty-year period following the 1558 accession of Elizabeth I, a total of 259 commissions were issued, an average of more than twelve commissions a year (or one a month). At first, commissions were confined mainly to the east of the country, from Carrickfergus and the marches of Meath south to Waterford, but soon a wider area was affected, and during Sidney’s first lord deputyship (October 1565-April 1571) martial law became countrywide. All of Munster and the south-west was given over to it for the first time in 1566-7, and in 1569 commissions were issued introducing it to the whole of Ulster and Connaught. Moreover, as martial law spread, its personnel began to change, with gradually fewer and fewer native Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Irish employed as commissioners. By the early 1580s they were forced to make way for a predominantly New English (and increasingly Protestant) group.

Mounting severity

Most significantly, however, the actual form that martial law took was being constantly amended during this period to suit changing circumstances as the power of the crown grew, becoming more severe with each passing year. At the start of Elizabeth’s reign, martial law, when used against non-rebels, was directed usually against the poorer elements of Irish society, against those unfortunate enough to occupy land valued at less than twenty shillings or own chattels worth less than IR£10. By the mid-1570s this had changed dramatically, and martial law was being used against nearly all sections of society, including the rich and powerful. Thus in 1573 the chief commissioner for Connaught, Edward Fitton, was authorised to use martial law at his discretion ‘without any limitation’, and in 1576 Francis Agard was granted the same powers for use anywhere in County Dublin. Only the titled peerage—a tiny, highly privileged group —remained exempt from the threat of summary execution (unless, of course, they rebelled and so fell foul of the Tudor law of treason). Peers apart, by the 1570s martial law was, often as not, targeted at the local Irish elite—at untitled native lords, at chieftains and gentry—something which upped the stakes in political affairs, and created an environment for increasing conflict...


Twenty years of continuous martial law had encouraged the emergence of an uncompromising state ideology, one that automatically assumed the political and military independence of native lords must be reduced by any means whatsoever for their territories to be reformed. For the local lords themselves, pledges of loyalty and obedience to the crown no longer offered freedom from outside interference; with martial law commissioners marauding around the countryside, they must cede their ancient autonomy to the state or face the consequences. In Dublin the orthodox government view of the Irish became increasingly racialist and supremacist, maintaining that only force would make them governable. Without terror, without martial law, they would remain beyond reform.

Rest of the article can be read here: http://www.historyireland.com///volumes/volume5/issue2/features/?id=113279

jonniebgood1

It is a broad question.

I think a clear case could be made to put forward the 1840's famine as an answer to this question. I guess it depends on how you define 'atrocities'.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is a broad question.

I think a clear case could be made to put forward the 1840's famine as an answer to this question. I guess it depends on how you define 'atrocities'.

It depends on how you define Irish

The Sack of Youghal

It is at this point in the turbulent history of Elizabethan Ireland that Youghal becomes relevant. In what Richard Berleth ('The Twilight Lords') calls a coincidence 'at once embarrassingly flamboyant and indisputably factual', a large section of Youghal's defensive wall collapsed within an hour of Desmond's proclamation of rebellion. The walled town had been a stronghold of the Desmonds since gifted by Robert FitzStephen to Maurice FitzGerald in 1215. However, it had long been amenable to English colonists and that was excuse enough for Desmond, along with his relative, the Seneschal of Imokilly, to attack, burn and plunder the town for five days solid. Nothing was spared. Even St. Mary's Church and Our Lady's College, which Desmond's forbears had founded, were 'well nigh demolished'. When Black Tom Ormonde recaptured the town some weeks later, he declared the town's 15th century walls to be in 'deplorable' condition and ordered them fortified. The Lord Mayor, Patrick Coppinger, was hanged from his own doorway for gross negligence. Ormonde claimed it was the sight of Youghal and the gruesome fate of its citizens that turned him against Desmond's 'cankered and alienated heart' ever after.



http://www.turtlebunbury.com/history/history_irish/history_irish_raleigh.htm

Whatever happened to the Earls of Desmond ?

http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/EarlsDesmondUJA6-1858/index.php

In Youghal's case were the native Irish already displaced ?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

****ing hell.

This has nothing to do with history, just a chance for a few celtic supporters to engage in a bit of chest beating.

I haven't seen anyone bring that up but you.

If one is looking at the famine etc I suppose it is only right to discuss how the Irish nobility assimilated and how they treated their tenants.

Mind you, Celtic supporters show up everywhere

For example, on 7 July 1830 the Duke of Wellington wrote: I confess that the annually recurring starvation in Ireland, for a period differing, according to the goodness or badness of the season, from one week to three months, gives me more uneasiness than any other evil existing in the United Kingdom.
It is starvation, because it is the fact that, although there is an abundance of provisions in the country of a superior kind, and at a cheaper rate than the same can be bought in any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions, those who want in the midst of plenty cannot get, because they do not possess even the small sum of money necessary to buy a supply of food.
It occurs every year, for that period of time that elapses between the final consumption of one year’s crop of potatoes, and the coming of the crop of the following year, and it is long or short, according as the previous season has been bad or good.
Now when this misfortune occurs, there is no relief or mitigation, excepting a recourse to public money. The proprietors of the country, those who ought to think for the people, to foresee this misfortune, and to provide beforehand a remedy for it, are amusing themselves in the Clubs in London, in Cheltenham, or Bath, or on the Continent, and the Government are made responsible for the evil, and they must find the remedy for it where they can—anywhere excepting in the pockets of Irish Gentlemen.


http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine

And for comparison I would not mind seeing Scottish and English examples either.

Fratton Fred

MyKeyG wrote: »

Dem feckin Black and Tans!!! Animals I tells ya!!!

MyKeyG wrote: »

Well feel free to move on! Some people have the mental ability to divide history and politics.

Unfortunately, very very few people do.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Unfortunately, very very few people do.

The question over what defines Irish in Irish history is huge.

The 1916 Rising was led by a Scotsman and the son of an English stonemason;James Connolly and Patrick Pearse . The Rising was a failure except for this happened

The murder of Francis Sheehy-Skeffington aroused considerable public revulsion. Generally regarded as an
amiable eccentric and universally respected for his principles, the circumstances of his death greatly contributed
to the shifting of public sympathy away from the side of the supposed upholders of law and order to that of
the insurgents. The public revulsion was particularly aggravated by the systematic attempt at a cover-up by the
military authorities—up to and including General Maxwell. Meanwhile, reports of atrocities perpetrated by
members of the South Staffordshire Regiment in the course of the fierce house-to-house fighting in the North
King Street area at the back of the Four Courts, further inflamed public hostility, alienating even the most
moderate of nationalists beyond recall.

http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/10.2.pdf

With a name like Skeffington there is no doubt that he was a member of the Anglo Irish Ascendancy.

So in part, the rising owed part of its impetus to both the suffragette & socialist movements.

How do you account for that ?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This has nothing to do with history, just a chance for a few celtic supporters to engage in a bit of chest beating.

It is an entirely legitimate question. If an answer deviates from historical fact into 'chest beating' you can report it. If we leave politics out of it Fred I would like your answer to the OP as it cannot be denied that atrocities were carried out?

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is an entirely legitimate question. If an answer deviates from historical fact into 'chest beating' you can report it. If we leave politics out of it Fred I would like your answer to the OP as it cannot be denied that atrocities were carried out?

Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?

Ash.J.Williams

The massacre in Kildare when the Irish agreed to a weapons amnesty and duely handed in their weapons, only to encounter a drunken troop of soildiers hell bent on killing Irish people....that was pretty bad


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

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?

The question is fine. Your question quoted is also fine but is different than th OP.
If we leave politics out of it (i.e. take a neutral viewpoint) what would be your answer to the OP?

owenc

paky wrote: »

what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.

Who cares.

owenc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

****ing hell.

This has nothing to do with history, just a chance for a few celtic supporters to engage in a bit of chest beating.

Exactly. Irish people can't say anything nice about the british people. And my thoughts are proven when i look at the after hours forum and find a disgusting thread about the british flag.

dubhthach

Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?

The simplest questions are often the hardest ones. I think the OP has hit the mark expertly.

We will make a revisionist out of you yet .

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.

As I see it , there are 2 schools of thought, 1 being the traditional view and a "Blood, Guts & Goriest Moments in Irish History" would make a great thread in its own right.

There is no-end of material and sources there and the p.c. manual could get thrown out the window.

The other view would be that what defined Irish was a moving target as exemplified by the Battle of the Boyne with a half Scottish-half French English King having a Battle over his throne with his Dutch son-in-law.(Bannasidhe have I got that right ?).

I used the Sack of Youghal as an example and Cromwell's Anti-Royalist Campaign is another.

That would be new ground for the forum.

So 2 threads could fix the problem.

MyKeyG

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Unfortunately, very very few people do.

Yeah spot the humour genius:rolleyes:. Are you going to start grasping at straws to defend your ridiculous comment?

Everyone is entitled to a history. Are we supposed to forget ours just because it upsets a few people? British atrocities are a massive part of our history. If you wish to discuss atrocities in general feel free to start a thread suitable to your point of view, this one is specific and it has every right to be. Unless you consider yourself the sort of person who reserves the right to dictate to others what they should discuss?

jonniebgood1

Keep the discussion on topic folks.

If you find a post that you think is unsuitable you report it, not respond to it.
If you have a problem with the thread you can PM a mod to discuss it. If people make sweeping statements such as 'who cares' they may be banned. It is prefereable that this does not happen.

getz

it would be cromwell without doubt,but why did he do it ?to understand that you have to look what was happening in europe,he was a catholic hater,not only had england come out of a religious civil war where more englishmen died than in the two world wars,there was persecution of non catholics going on in europe,over the 250 years leeding up to his invasion of ireland,the catholic church had murdered in various stages of the inquisions 60 million people[most of them tortured and burned at the stake,[makes hitler look like a baby] a catherine de medici instigated the butchering of 75,000 french protestant huguenots on aug 24 1572,in 1590 henry 1V issued the edict of nantes to protect them,the church recinded the edict with the help of catholic king louis X1V and butchered half a million french huguennots,in 1655 oliver cromwell threatend to invade france for the new massacre upon french protestants of the valley of piedmont by six catholic regiments by the duke of savoy, meanwhile in ireland the massacre of irish protestants on oct 23 1641,the feast of ingnatious loyola,it is estimated that 1,500 irish protestants were butchered in the streets and in their homes ,parliament believed that rome was to blame and was intending to use ireland as a base to invade england,useing catholics and english royaiist forces and the french,,finally cromwell invaded ireland and attacked the jesuit base at drogheda and in his rage exterminated the entire catholic village of 2,000 .things are not quite as simple as people think.but to be sure he was the worst

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.

I agree with duchthach - May I suggest 'Atrocities in Ireland'. If we continue with the current thread title perhaps we should also have a thread entitled 'Irish atrocities in Britain'- of which the Warrington Bombing would be one. In the interests of balance.

@CDfm :

The other view would be that what defined Irish was a moving target as exemplified by the Battle of the Boyne with a half Scottish-half French English King having a Battle over his throne with his Dutch son-in-law.(Bannasidhe have I got that right ?).

- Spot on - also worth mentioning was that William of Orange wanted the resources of England (in particular) to help him in his endless crusade against Louis XIV of France. It really had feck all to do with Ireland except for deciding whether a Scots/English king or a Dutch king got to strip its natural resources.

@Fatton Fred :

Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?

How does one define worst? The greatest number killed at the time or the horror it caused?

For me, and 16th century Gaelic Irish commentators, one of the worst actions carried out by Richard Bingham while President of Connacht was the hanging of three hostages who were under the age of 5 .

From the Annals of Loch Cé http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100010B/index.html:

LC1586.17

The governor, and the Earl of Clann-Rickard, and the Earl of Tuadh-Mumha, accompanied by large armies, established a camp in the Tochar, and in Baile-in-Rodba; and they hanged three children in Ross-mor, whom they themselves had in their hands for a long time before that, viz., the son of the Blind Abbot, and the son of Meiler, son of Walter Fada, and the son of John Burk: and that was a pitiful deed—the hanging of the innocent children. And they killed Eoghan, the son of Domhnall-an-chogaidh O'Flaithbhertaigh, per dolum, and killed and hanged several of his people. And the army that committed those deeds brought three thousand cows with them, and entirely plundered Ciarraidhe.

The Gaelic Irish had a great regard for ruthlessness. They admired decisive military action but they also lived in a society that highly valued children. In their minds to hang a child was so horrific as to be unthinkable. In Tudor England, children were often subject to Capital punishment so to Bingham and Co - it was just another weapon of Terror.

These particular children had been handed over as hostages by the English backed claimant to the title of MacUilliam Íochtair { Mayo} (Ricard MacOliverus) -not by their parents as surety for good behaviour - they were the children of MacOliverus' opponents for the title of MacUilliam and, coincidently, their father's had been involved in a skirmish back in 1581 where MacOliverus' son had died. Blackmail for good behaviour and revenge all in one go.

None of their father's had actually risen in insurrection when these children were hanged - they did do so afterwards. Which supports Edwards' contention mentioned in the article I quoted earlier that Martial Law was used to provoke outright rebellion.

In terms of number killed - the Massacre at Ardnaree the same year (1586) has to rank highly.

Also from Loch Cé involving Richard Bingham that same year:

LC1586.18

The sons of James Mac Domhnaill came to Erinn, with fifteen hundred Albanachs; and they destroyed much in Uladh. And they went to Cill-Ronain in the territory of Connacht, and were five nights in it; and the governor was at Bel-an-atha-fada, a numerous host of the chieftains of Connacht, and of Saxons, being with him. And the Albanachs retreated to Cul-mhaine; and some of the Clann-William came to meet them; and they advanced to Droiched-in-chillín. And when the Saxons heard that the Albanachs had gone past them down, they followed them; and they encountered one another at Droiched-in-chilín, and delivered a vigorous battle to each other there; and five or six of the governor's horses were killed; and the Albanachs departed uninjured to Sliabh-damh, and carried a prey with them to Ard-na-riadh. As regards the governor, he was rendered furious and fully angry at the escape of the Albanachs from him, and he permitted all the 'rising out' of the Gaeidhil that he had to depart, and returned southwards towards the Caislén-mór.
And two Saxon companies that came from Mumha overtook him there; and he had then seven companies of the best army in the world; and he followed them nobly, valiantly, vigorously, until he reached Ard-na-riadh. And when the Albanachs saw them approaching they advanced from the town to meet and encounter the Foreigners, and discharged vehement, furious, showers from their firearms against the Foreigners; and such was the misfortune of the Albanachs, that they wounded neither man nor horse with that discharge, and that they commenced a movement of rout and flight towards the Muaidh, and that twenty hundred, or more, were killed and drowned. James Mac Domhnaill's two sons were killed there, viz., Domhnall Gorm and Alaster; and Gilla-espuig, son of Dubhghall, son of Donnchadh Cam MacAilin, was slain there; and Edmond Kiocarach, son of David Bán Burk, and Cathair, son of Domhnall, son of Donnchadh Ruadh Mac Domhnaill, were slain there, and many more whom we cannot reckon, from their number. And in Ard-na-riadh this slaughter was given, a week before the festival of Michael.

Some estimates put the number dead at 3,000. One of Bingham's captains - Geoffrey Fenton later wrote ' I was never so tired of killing men as I was that day.' He then added in a casual tone that once all the men were dead - they 'dispatched the women and children'.

Both of these were appalling atrocities - but ones that are rarely, if ever, mentioned in the history books. Why? I suspect it is because these two events do not conform to the 'Irish victims/ English (or British) evil oppressors' school of thought.

Firstly the 3 children. They were Bourkes of Mayo - and members of a sept or branch that was completely Gaelicised (Sliocht Ullig of Burrishoole, Achill and Erris) - but they described themselves as English being descended in the male line from Anglo-Normans. They were Seán-Gall (Old Foreigners) who were fighting a rear guard action to remain culturally Gaelic.

The children were handed over by the senior member of another sept of the Bourkes of Mayo (Slioct Ricard of Trawley)- who reckoned an alliance with the English was the best way to secure power for himself and his immediate family.

The hanging was ordered by Richard Bingham - Elizabeth's chief official in Connacht but accompanying him were the earls of Clanricard and Thomond - Burke of Galway and O'Brien of Thomond.

Can't get more 'Irish' then a descendent of Boru now can you?

So we have a 'new' English Tudor official and his Old English and Gaelic Irish allies executing children for a crime not actually committed (rebellion) by their Old English fathers who are trying to continue to live according to Gaelic Irish customs. O'Brien continued to support Bingham.


The estimated 3,000 killed (of which around half would have been women and children) were Scottish Redshanks - seasonal mercenaries employed by the Old English and Gaelic Irish to swell their ranks during the Summer fighting season. In this case they were MacDonnells from the Western Isles - Gaelic Scots. The initially were working in Ulster for O'Donnell but were approached by members of Sliocht Ullig - who had declared The Blind Abbot (Uilliam An t'Ab Caoch of Burrishoole - father of one of the hanged children mentioned above) as MacUilliam - in open defiance of Bingham who had declared the title outlawed.

Bingham, and his Gaelic allies such as O'Brien, were initially defeated and outflanked by MacDonnell who continued on towards Mayo. Richard Bingham 'the governor, he was rendered furious and fully angry at the escape of the Albanachs from him, and he permitted all the 'rising out' of the Gaeidhil that he had to depart, and returned southwards towards the Caislén-mór' - he sent O'Brien back to Cashel and continued to pursue MacDonnell who halted on the banks of the River Moy across from Ardnaree, but for some reason did not appear to take any safety precautions such as posting sentries.
Bingham surprised them at night. Not only did a massacre ensue - they went back and decapitated all of the bodies, including the children.

Those that attempted to escape by swimming the Moy were slaughtered by Bingham's Bourke allies in Tirawley - around 200 people.

3,000 Gaelic Scots who had been employed by Old English to help them fight against Anglicisation were massacred by 'New' English and 'Old English' - yet, these Scots died in the battle to preserve Gaelic Ireland.

Irony of Ironies - at the Battle of Kinsale, the Tirawley Bourkes fought for O'Donnell having changed sides when Bingham was recalled in 1595 while the staunchly Gaelic Bourkes of Burrishoole fought for Mountjoy - they were led by the son of Gráinne Ní Mháille, Tibbóid Na Long á Búrc. Why - because in their eyes Áodh Rua Uí Domhnaill (Red Hugh) was a far greater threat to them then Elizabeth.

Things are never clear cut and to define things according to some nonsensical definition of who was 'Irish' and who was 'English' just feeds jingoistic propaganda.

I should also point out that both of those entries in Loch Cé were written by a Gaelic Irish 'chieftain' Brian McDiarmida, of the McDiarmida's of Roscommon - a man not known for his love of the Bourkes of Burrishoole - he constantly criticises them in the Annals - and traditional ally of the Bourkes of Tirawley on whose behalf he engaged in some obvious spin - after they had changed sides that is...

dubhthach

I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)

dubhthach

Mod

Jugger0, inflammatory comments aren't welcome in this form. Desist or I will hand out infractions/forum ban

MarchDub

First let me say that I agree with some of the reservations expressed here that a thread like this could easily and quickly descend into a bashing opportunity if events are taken out of historic context and not within their own historic or situational relevance.And changing the name of the thread to an inclusive form does little IMO to change that direction.


I don’t think the historic issue is ever which side committed what atrocities – as if we were talking about a sporting event with an equal goal – and equal starting point - on both sides. That is not what the history of Britain and Ireland was about in its essentials. It’s not what the history of imperialism is about.


Ireland was invaded, the invader’s intention was to control and conquer. The expansion of empire was all about this and much has been written on the British side defending the position of this imperial aspiration. From the earlier times in this historic relationship with Ireland the English were attempting to make the rules/laws and were being constantly hindered [for want of a better word] by the native population. The native nationalist Irish were on the defence or in a position of fending off the aims of the invader. If someone breaks into my house with the intention of stealing my goods and I then defend myself with arms – which ‘atrocity’ is worse?


If we concentrate purely on atrocities we could go on forever with competing numbers and egregious events and who did worse – and avoid history all together.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)

Our buddy Richard Bingham was involved in that massacre too. I can't get access the relevant entry at the moment - but it is in the State Papers Ireland.

Bingham was the captain of a ship named Swiftsure under the over all command of an admiral named William Wynters.

Now, Bingham was a man quick to blame others for any **** up and equally quick to take credit for successes he was also obsessively resentful of those he believed had been granted royal recognition for lesser deeds then he himself had accomplished - such as Raleigh, Drake, Wynters etc. (There are reams of 'It's not my fault!' letters from him in the State Papers - nearly as many as there are letters where he describes how he saved the day against all the odds).

There is a full transcript of a 'poor Rich Bingham how he has been overlooked' document from around the 1570s published in Memoirs of the Binghams (full text available:
http://www.archive.org/stream/memoirsofbingham00mcca/memoirsofbingham00mcca_djvu.txt)

After Dún an Oir, Wynters brought charges against Bingham for disobeying orders - Bingham was meant to be on patrol against pirates in the English channel. Bingham's response is in the State Papers - sadly the questions put to him are not. In his defence he slams Wynter's as corrupt and incompetent and said the Swiftsure had no choice but to sail to Kerry as Wynter's failed utterly to respond to the Spanish/Papal threat.

According to Bingham's version - all of the Tudor officials were lax in performing their duties and it was only his arrival that saved the day.
He does mention the massacre of the prisoners - he explained that he had left the immediate scene in order to assess the fortifications and found them in an awful state. While he was overseeing repairs to the fortifications (which would have been Walter Raleigh's job) the sailors, and he simply could not explain why, went berserk and up and slaughtered the prisoners. By the time he got back to restore order, it was too late.

Bingham declared neither De Grey or Raleigh were there - yet we know they were (as was Edmund Spenser). That was his dig at those 'incompetents' who had gained advancement while he had been ignored.

According to Bingham's version - If those responsible had been doing their jobs, Bingham would not have had to A) to leave his assigned post in the Channel - so that was Wynter's fault. to save the day and defeat the Spanish/Italians - de Grey's fault. C) to check out and oversee repairs to the fortifications - Raleigh's fault. Plus, the implication of his statement is that the massacre would not have happened if de Gray etc had been present to keep order.

paky

it disappoints me that the mods changed the name of the thread. its scary to think that people can just airbrush these events from history because they don't suit the current british political agenda. theres a name for people like that and they're called holocaust deniers.

byhookorbycrook

dubhthach wrote: »

I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)

The fort itself is sadly neglected, so many buses whizz by on the Slea head drive and don't even know it's there.

Fratton Fred

paky wrote: »

it disappoints me that the mods changed the name of the thread. its scary to think that people can just airbrush these events from history because they don't suit the current british political agenda. theres a name for people like that and they're called holocaust deniers.

I think this post is possibly the biggest justification for changing the title.

If you read the very interesting posts you will see nothing is being airbrushed, simply relayed in an impartial and very informative manner.

Holocaust denial, ffs.

slowburner

paky wrote: »

it disappoints me that the mods changed the name of the thread. its scary to think that people can just airbrush these events from history because they don't suit the current british political agenda. theres a name for people like that and they're called holocaust deniers.

Removing 'British' from the thread title does not preclude a discussion of British atrocities.
Nothing has been airbrushed away, the scope of the thread has simply been broadened.

ejmaztec

The original title air-brushed any atrocities not carried out by the English/British.

MyKeyG

Whether people think it's changed for the better or not is immaterial imo. Going off topic is a no no on boards so surely using mod privileges to change the topic should be similarly be frowned upon.

I think think the narrow minded have been pandered to on this thread and so I for one am leaving!

Seanchai

I look forward to the thread 'Nazi atrocities in Poland' being renamed 'Atrocities in Poland'. After all we can't offend the nice invader and must, for the sake of balance you see, not imply that the occupier was less justified in his violence than were the natives who responded with violence. :rolleyes:

So much for historical debate and freedom of expression when a mod is changing a thread title following a predictable whinge by the British poster Fratton Fred, one of the greatest apologists for British imperialism on Boards.ie.

Any chance that this newfound concern could see an editing of the 'Positive Legacy of British rule' thread to something like the 'Positive Legacy of Law and Order'? Or is it OK to praise the British legacy but not to condemn it? The double standard and censorship here is fairly astounding.

CDfm

Seanchai wrote: »

'Positive Legacy of Law and Order'?

Well there was the 1916 Referendum

OhYesItIs

I'd say that we are currently living one of the most atrocious acts committed by Ireland on it's own, and for generations to come.

paky wrote: »

what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think this post is possibly the biggest justification for changing the title.

If you read the very interesting posts you will see nothing is being airbrushed, simply relayed in an impartial and very informative manner.

Holocaust denial, ffs.

Paky has a point about the " british political agenda" and this is very evident when I looked up the real history behind the dererters pardons campaign.

An opportunity missed to look at the Historiography and what defined British & Irish in the context.

jonniebgood1

MyKeyG wrote: »

Whether people think it's changed for the better or not is immaterial imo. Going off topic is a no no on boards so surely using mod privileges to change the topic should be similarly be frowned upon.

I think think the narrow minded have been pandered to on this thread and so I for one am leaving!

The title was changed (as suggested by several users) to broaden the discussion and you say that is narrow minded.... you are being ironic.
This forum is for discussing history, not for battles between users from different backgrounds. In any case the OP question still stands unaltered so there is no change unless being overly sensitive to the thread title.

Seanchai wrote: »

So much for historical debate and freedom of expression when a mod is changing a thread title following a predictable whinge by the British poster Fratton Fred, one of the greatest apologists for British imperialism on Boards.ie.

This forum is for discussing history, not for battles between users from different backgrounds. Infraction for personalising your post. Please move on from this now.

Please return to topic. Any possibility of discussing atrocities in Ireland is being ruined by posts such as those quoted. Whether the discussion is British atrocities or atrocities in general, this type of subject seems to attract people who are unable to properly discuss the subject at hand. Future posts such as those quoted will be dealt with, whoever they are from, in the hope that it will allow others to discuss the subject.

Moderator.

Fratton Fred

I presume Richard Bingham was an ancestor of George Charles Bingham who gained notoriety for his ruthless actions during the famine and also the ill fated charge of the light brigade.

Then there is of course the 7th Earl of Lucan, another Richard Bingham who currently has no known abode.

Nice family.

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I presume Richard Bingham was an ancestor of George Charles Bingham who gained notoriety for his ruthless actions during the famine and also the ill fated charge of the light brigade.

Then there is of course the 7th Earl of Lucan, another Richard Bingham who currently has no known abode.

Nice family.

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Jacknory

mattjack wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/23479-cromwell-revised-separating-myths-historical-reality.html


Cromwell Revised, Separating myths and Historical Reality


No one disputes Cromwell's forces committed atrocities and by commission Cromwell was responsible for those atrocities, but the reality is Cromwell forces massacred less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland, who were put to the sword.. Cromwell's forces actually killed more civilians in Bolton then Drogheda and nor did Cromwell authorise such atrocities.

"In September 1649, he justified his sacking of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood." However, Drogheda had never been held by the rebels in 1641—many of its garrison were in fact English royalists. On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as slavesto Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England".

His generals might have been a party to what happened but ultimately Cromwell has to be the one held responsible. Quoting that "less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland" at his hands is simply not true. General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000. Ireton was a general of Cromwell so the blood spilt by Ireton was the same as Cromwell carrying this out himself whatever way you want to look at it.

Fratton Fred

dubhthach wrote: »

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Even so, I'm not sure I'd be overly pleased if one dated my daughter!

jonniebgood1

Off topic posts have been deleted.

The reason for this is to try and keep the thread both in line with OP and also to be consistent with my previous post.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Please return to topic. Any possibility of discussing atrocities in Ireland is being ruined by posts such as those quoted. Whether the discussion is British atrocities or atrocities in general, this type of subject seems to attract people who are unable to properly discuss the subject at hand. Future posts such as those quoted will be dealt with, whoever they are from, in the hope that it will allow others to discuss the subject.

If anyone has an issue with this or wishes to discuss it further please PM or use the feedback forum.

Moderator.

mattjack

Jacknory wrote: »

"In September 1649, he justified his sacking of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood." However, Drogheda had never been held by the rebels in 1641—many of its garrison were in fact English royalists. On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as slavesto Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England".

His generals might have been a party to what happened but ultimately Cromwell has to be the one held responsible. Quoting that "less then 1,000 civilians in Ireland" at his hands is simply not true. General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000. Ireton was a general of Cromwell so the blood spilt by Ireton was the same as Cromwell carrying this out himself whatever way you want to look at it.

Good point , I looked at Cromwell alone , you looked at the entire event. You looked at Wikipedia ..I looked elsewhere.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

They are descended from his nephew Sir Henry Bingham, 1st Baronet of Castlebar. So yeah same overall family though in this case not a direct descendent.

Henry Bingham was the son of John Bingham - Richard's brother. There was another brother George who was Sheriff of Sligo - plus a nephew also named George Bingham and a brother-in-law whose name, if memory serves, was Thomas Higham.

Richard had no sons, only a daughter. For the life of me I can't remember if George had children, but I do know the Castlebar/Lucan line descended from John.

How John got his hands on Castlebar was also tied in to the events of 1586 and the introduction of an alleged 'new' taxation method called The Second Composition of Connacht. There was a First Composition back in the 1570s but it was never fully enforced and contained so many exceptions as to be unworkable.

Bernie Cunningham has published on the 2nd Composition ( http://www.jstor.org/pss/30008023 - for those who can access JSTOR - it's also in IHS vol XXIV #93) But, I am of the opinion that as her focus was on Clanricard and Thomond (both Loyalist) she extrapolated from her research there and has presented an inaccurate picture of the situation in non-Loyalist regions such as Mayo.

The terms and conditions of the 2nd Composition called for the absolute end to all aspects of Gaelic life. It covered everyone - whether they signed up or not and declared any objections to be treason.

It was also a work of social engineering as the Clans lost collective ownership of their lands, which was now assigned to individuals. Naturally, those who supported this enforced Anglicisation received the greatest rewards in terms of land allocation - and more importantly- tax free demesnes.

Richard MacOliverus Bourke signed the Composition as MacUillam Íochtair - agreeing that the title would die with him. He also got the lions share of the lands that went with the title - around 8,000 acres. His immediate family also did well - all receiving generous allocations.

Richard MacO kicked the bucket shortly after signing.

The seniors of the other septs did not fair so well as the Tirawley crowd - of Sliocht Ullig only The Blind Abbot received land - the majority of Burrishoole, Achill and Erris was granted to Black Tom Butler, earl of Ormond based on his alleged connection to a Thomas Botlier who'd held a grant in the region in the 13th century but whose line had died out. (it's good to be related to the Queen )

2 members of Sliocht Walter of Kilmaine received allocations, and only the senior of Slioct Edmond of Castlebar did.

This was a man named Edmond Bourke (Eamonn á Búrc) of Castlebar (he was the official Tanaiste to MacOliverus so should have become MacUilliam)- his sons objected to the terms of the Composition while it was still in the negotiation state so Edmond was declared traitor and publicly hanged under Martial Law (he was an elderly man, estimated to be in his mid 90s and he had to be carried to the gallows and held up to have the noose put around his neck) - the Bingham's held the commission of Martial law (the records are unclear whether it was Richard or John) but John did apply - to his brother- to be granted Castlebar Castle. Poor John was thwarted at the last minute when brother Richard was outranked by the 'new' Lord Deputy - William Fitzwilliam -who granted Castlebar to his own brother, Bryan Fitzwilliam. Eventually John bought the lease.

John Bingham was also responsible for the death of Eoghan Ua Flaithbhertaigh - eldest son of Gráinne Ní Mháille and son-in-law of Edmond of Castlebar.

From the Annals of Loch Cé http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100010B/index.html:

LC1586.17

The governor, and the Earl of Clann-Rickard, and the Earl of Tuadh-Mumha, accompanied by large armies, established a camp in the Tochar, and in Baile-in-Rodba; and they hanged three children in Ross-mor, whom they themselves had in their hands for a long time before that, viz., the son of the Blind Abbot, and the son of Meiler, son of Walter Fada, and the son of John Burk: and that was a pitiful deed—the hanging of the innocent children. And they killed Eoghan, the son of Domhnall-an-chogaidh O'Flaithbhertaigh, per dolum, and killed and hanged several of his people. And the army that committed those deeds brought three thousand cows with them, and entirely plundered Ciarraidhe.

Eoghan was arrested for treason - he was accused of giving aid to her Majesties enemies by allowing those in rebellion to keep their cattle on his lands - those 3,000 cattle mentioned in Loch Cé. He was arrested by John Bingham - after Eoghan's followers had been hanged - but while on route back to Athlone, Eoghan died from multiple stab wounds - according to Richard Bingham's accounts while trying to escape - 'and in pursuit was slain'. The man who killed him was Captain Grene O'Molloy - and Irishman in Bingham's army.

John then arrested Eoghan's Mother - Gráinne Ní Mháille, who had been summoned under license of safe passage to Athlone by Richard. He also ordered her to bring all of her portable goods. Her goods were seized by the Bingham's and she was sentenced to hang under Martial Law. This was where Bingham made a tactical error. Gráinne's son in law - Risteard MacDemann an Corrain of Erris (referred to in the State Papers as Devil's Hook - but he was in fact the son of Devil's Hook) offered himself as hostage to secure Gráinne's release. MacDemann was a bit Michael Collins in that the English had no idea what he looked like as neither he nor his father before him ever agreed to a meeting with any Tudor official.

Whatever the reason - MacDemann was not properly secured and rode out of Athlone with his newly freed, and considerably poorer, mother-in-law.

Now, the question is - does the implementation of such a biased piece of legislation and it's enforcement via the State sanctioned killing of those who may possibly object an act of Atrocity?

- Eoghan Ua Flaithbhertaigh had signed and been allocated land in Galway, but it was possible he may act to support his father-in-law.
Gráinne as a woman would not expect to be granted land but her son Tibbóid na Long and son-in-law MacDemann would certainly have expected to - instead they all found themselves tenants of Ormond.
Plus she was unlikely to take what she saw as the murder of her son lying down. It was one of the main issues she complained to Elizabeth about in 1593 - working from memory but I think it's 63/170/63 in the State Papers.

Hundreds were executed by the Bingham brother in 1586/7 - the heaviest losses were incurred by the Gaelicised Sliocht Ullig. I have researched the identities of the non-Sliocht Ullig victims and in each case have been able to demonstrate a connection to Gráinne Ní Mháille (all 3 children hanged were related to her by marriage- e.g. the Blind Abbot was her brother-in-law) and via her back to Sliocht Ullig - no wonder R Bingham called her 'the nurse to all rebellions'.

The evidence clearly shows Richard Bingham and his immediate family targeted, executed and seized the property of one particular extended family - that of Gráinne.

Is that not also an atrocity?

CDfm

So in this context it was "legal" for the English to commit atrocities against those who did not surrender ?

Also, certain Chiefs did surrender and claim clan lands ?

Do we know what proportion and who did so ?

dubhthach

One thing that strikes me about the whole "surrender of clan lands" is it reminds me of the US Dawes Act of 1887 which set out to divide tribal land which was held in "commonage" into allotments for individual Indians.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

So in this context it was "legal" for the English to commit atrocities against those who did not surrender ?

Also, certain Chiefs did surrender and claim clan lands ?

Do we know what proportion and who did so ?

Absolutely.

Not just against those who did not surrender - but also against those who voiced any objection to the terms.

The premise was simple -the legislation stated that all inhabitants of Connacht were bound by the terms of the Composition but only a chosen few were members of the commission that drew up those terms. If I remember correctly it had about 10 members- Tudor officials, interested earls, local Anglican Bishops plus who ever was the 'Lord'/'Chieftain' of the extended Clan- for example all of the Bourkes of Mayo were represented by Ricard MacOliverus as MacUilliam - as if that title equated to an English earl giving him the right to negotiate for all. A right Gaelic law certainly didn't give him. In that regard it was a re-hash of the old Surrender and Regrant -One Lord to rule them all - one lord to bind them. One Lord to grab the land and it the future grind them .

The Anglican church had 2 bishops on the commission (bishop of Tuam did rather well out it it actually), there were a few Tudor officials such as Dillon the tax collector (guess what - he got land!), the Brownes of The Neal (now of Westport Hse ), Nick White - master of the Rolls,must not forget the soon to be major landowner in the region- Tom Butler earl of Ormond and of course, Richard Bingham.

So people summoned to sign were presented with a fait acompli - sign here to agree to what we have told you you are getting or be guilty of treason. Sentence of death.

The Bingham's preferred to use Martial Law as it granted the holder of the Commission of ML a share of the...shall we say accused's... property (what proportion is stated in the Edward's article I quoted in previous post) but if found guilty under Common Law - their property reverted to the State. Plus Martial Law avoided all of that messing about with Sessions and due process...and records...evidence etc etc.


Indeed, the already dictatorial (and financially rewarding) powers available to Bingham under Martial Law were extended in 1588 by Wm Fitzwilliam [it's a document called the Fitzwilliam book of Instructions -( I think July) 1588, it's in the State Papers Ireland] - little gems like 'if you think they are lying - torture them until they stop lying' and 'if you suspect they may possibly be considering rebellion - execute them'.

Anyone who voiced any objection was automatically deemed guilty of treason - the most serious crime in the Tudor Big Big Big Book of Laws - and Bingham was given carte blanch to deal with them as he saw fit - as long as it didn't cost the Exchequer any money of course.
He boasted in letters to London that he was forcing people to declare their true hatred of the Queen by squeezing them - he would arrest and execute relatives, seize their goods, take their children hostage to be raised as 'civilised' men (Gráinne's son Tibbóid na Long was 'raised' by George Bingham - he was the only one of 14 such children placed with GB not to be hanged - no idea how he managed that.) He was allowed away with it - despite charges being brought against him at least twice and damaging evidence against him from the like of Dillon and White - because the project paid for itself. Zero cost to Elizabeth - her wet dream.

Of the major landholders (or eventual landholders) obviously the members of the Commission all signed including the earls of Clanricard, Thomond and Ormond.

In Galway, Morrough Na Tuath - the Uí Flaithbhertaigh also singed getting a large chunk of Moycullen but kicked off when he found out his 'heartland' of Gnobeg was given to an Anglicised cousin.

In Ballinhinch Eoghan and Morrough Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh (two of Grainne's sons) signed and got Bunowen - but much of what 'should' have been 'theirs' was given to Morrough na Tuath's son Teige.

It's hard to ascertain who did and did not actually sign in Mayo - apart from R MacOliverus - as opposition to it there had kicked off even before the commissioners met.

Essentially, a few of the lads and lasses plus their children from Sliocht Walter, Sliocht Edmond and Sliocht Ullig got together, 'occupied' 2 tower houses (under Irish law these tower houses did 'belong' to one of them - under English law - who the hell knew who owned what any more!) and refused to fill in the forms in 1585 - with the exception of Risteard Mac Demann, his wife Mairead Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh and son Daithaí, - the occupiers had all been ececuted by 1586.

I've really only examined Mayo in depth - and it would be a days works to post who got what and how they were connected, or not, to who decided who got what - the whole thing was published in 1936: Freeman (ed), Compossicion Booke of Conought - it is in early modern English.

Plus - just because it was agreed - doesn't mean one actually got - to work out who actually got requires a trawl through a series of volumes which are called the Fiants
[
The Irish Fiants of the Tudor Sovereigns During the Reigns of Henry VIII,
Edward VI, Philip & Mary, and Elizabeth I.]

Lastly, in the case of Mayo - once it all really kicked off in 1585 - it didn't end until after Kinsale...but that's another story...;)

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

One thing that strikes me about the whole "surrender of clan lands" is it reminds me of the US Dawes Act of 1887 which set out to divide tribal land which was held in "commonage" into allotments for individual Indians.

Exactly!;)

MarchDub

Many decades ago I had to take an exam which - among other US Fed bills - involved the Dawes Act. So going from memory here - I will try and find references - the Act was partly the result of pressure from American Indian groups who wanted assimilation into Federal law and full US citizenship. It didn't quite work out as planned but was not seen at the time as an 'imposition' of the law on their former land 'rights'.

In fact the whole of the 'Indian Nation' did not get full assimilation into US citizenship until the early 1920s.

But - are we now including 'the world' atrocities in this thread? I only ask...:)