Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Azwaldo55

New historical research suggests that Cromwell did not slaughter thousands of innocent men women and children at Drogheda but rather was pilloried decades later by post-Restoration Royalist historians eager to blacken the name of the late Lord Protector.

For eleven long years no other document, that we know, of accuses Cromwell of civilian atrocities. There the matter should really have ended. Indeed, it is worth speculating that if the House of Cromwell, in the guise of his son Richard in the first instance, the second Lord Protector, had survived into the 1660s and beyond it is likely that both Crouch’s and Wharton’s outrageous publications would have been long cast to the mists of time.

Instead, of course, the Restoration happened when Charles II restored his royal seat on the throne and it wasn’t long before his father’s killers became the victims of vengeful royalist wrath. Not long after the bodies of Cromwell, his parliamentarian compatriot John Bradshaw and son-in-law Henry Ireton were exhumed and defiled as the chief protagonists of the failed republic, people couldn’t get to the printing presses quickly enough to destroy their reputations.

http://www.theirishstory.com/2014/08/13/opinion-cromwell-was-framed/#.U-ysUWNF8gJ

Cromwell after all committed regicide and forced many leading Royalists into exile and later as Charles II and his brother James II struggled against Parliament during their reigns, it made sense to produce black propaganda against him.

During the reign of William III and Mary II, Queen Anne and later the House of Hanover, Cromwell's usurpation of royal power made him a bogeyman as infamous as Guy Fawkes. It was only in the 19th century when Parliament finally came into its own and Victoria and her heirs became figure heads that Cromwell was rehabilitated as a great Briton.

The crisis that lead to the rise of parliamentarianism as a real force in British history was of course the failure of Charles I to defeat the Scottish Covenanters in 1639-1640 which set in motion the events that led to his execution and the emergence of the obscure country gentleman Cromwell. The leading regicides were elderly men who remembered the Catholic plots against England in the reign of Elizabeth I and James I. James and his retinue were young men who could have outlived their enemies and made a reactionary elderly Puritan parliament a memory. The core reason behind the English Civil War was taxation and overweening Royal power - the same reasons for the American Revolution over a century later. The subsequent monarchs of England all tried to restore an Absolute Monarchy. The memory of Cromwell put a spanner in the works.

Manach

I'd disagree.
My understanding from reading about this was that in his lifetime Cromwell was noted for his clemency but this extended to only certain segments - this did not include Irish or Catholics. Thus he deemed the massacres as retaliation for early assaults on Protestants.
As well, my understanding that the civil war was moves by a growing upper middle class/lower-nobility to acquire political power at the expense of the older ancient regime. It would be a measure of propaganda to swallow the term over-use of kingly power compared to the fragmented arbitrary and over-whelming use of power during the republician period that lead to centuries of suspicious of standing armies in the UK which backed the republic.

Arsemageddon

That entire blog post quoted in the OP seems to rely solely on the book 'Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy by Tom Reilly. That book was the greatest loads of poop I've ever read. The author seems to bend over backwards to give Cromwell the benefit of the doubt at each and every turn. IIRC he dismisses every single eye witness account of the siege and massacre (even Cromwel's own account) as they do not suit his narrative.

The massacres at Drogheda and later at Wexford might not have been as extreme as they are commonly believed to be, but they did occur.

Tom Reilly

Poop eh? Hmm. Charming.

Of course if I was being honest I would say it is quite disingenuous to describe my work as 'poop'. And you're right I am indeed the author of the quotation above, which I imagine is taken from an article I submitted to another forum recently. This 'new evidence' is contained in my latest book 'Cromwell was Framed (Ireland 1649)', which I can virtually guarantee that you, my friend, will also see as 'poop'. No question.

Thankfully, those without an axe to grind, or inherent historical baggage will see that my case in Cromwell's favour has merit. In my opinion of course, with this new book, it's now watertight. Open-minded and discerning readers will agree. And there are plenty of them. That's been my experience on this journey; people who see Cromwell as the murdering git who massacred the ordinary, unarmed people of Drogheda and Wexford are rarely willing to even consider the possibility that all is not as it seems. Predictable? Certainly. Sad? Definitely.

Jesus.

A cynic might say such an author might just be doing a bit of controversial revisionism to make a bit of moolah in these straightened times....


But I'm no such cynic

Tom Reilly

There y'are Jesus. A cynic might say anything. That's what cynics do. I'm one myself. However, this cynic - whoever he/she might be - does obviously not know that I have waived all royalties for this book and asked my publisher to give them to charity. This is about history, not money. That cynic no doubt will find some other disparaging remark to make about this. So predictable. So sad. Try again. Or not. I couldn't give a monkey's. Go me.

pedroeibar1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Poop eh? Hmm. Charming.

........Thankfully, those without an axe to grind, or inherent historical baggage will see that my case in Cromwell's favour has merit. In my opinion of course, with this new book, it's now watertight. Open-minded and discerning readers will agree. And there are plenty of them. That's been my experience on this journey; people who see Cromwell as the murdering git who massacred the ordinary, unarmed people of Drogheda and Wexford are rarely willing to even consider the possibility that all is not as it seems. Predictable? Certainly. Sad? Definitely.

I’m not going to call it ‘poop’ but you have not set out your stall coherently. Nor will I buy the book on what you have written here/on your blog, because you have mentioned nothing concrete to substantiate your claims.

For Drogheda there are several contemporary sources you have not mentioned in your piece – Col. Hewson for e.g. wrote more or less ‘contemporaneously’ on the matter. Those writings survive. The material – to quote just two good sources - in the Thomason Tracts and ‘The Perfect Diurnal’ predates the era you are claiming the ‘revisionism’ happened, and by quite a few years. Those sources clearly detail what happened.

All contemporary reports are very clear that Cromwell himself gave the order for ‘No quarter’ at Drogheda. At about that stage of the battle Col. Axtell offered quarter to some of the defenders (Aston’s men on the Mill Mount) yet after acceptance it was reneged upon and they were attacked with a few hundred killed – those that fled were not able to pull up the drawbridge behind them and the slaughter continued – Aston was beaten to death with his own wooden leg and another few hundred of his men killed by Hewson’s men. Within a short time about 6,000 parliamentarians were in the town, and outside their cavalry was ranged up which prevented retreat. At St. Peter’s Church Cromwell himself gave the order to’ burn them out’ by placing the church pews up against the door/steeple – those that tried to escape were put to the sword, others were forced into the fire. Those details are recorded at the time by Cromwell’s people and also by Cromwell himself, in a letter to Lenthall(*). Simply, Cromwell ordered ‘No Quarter’, no quarter was given, he then totally lost control of his troops and he had set the scene for the civilian atrocities by his own actions.

FWIW, it’s said that of the 2.000 or so Royalist troops killed at Drogheda, about half were Protestants, so the murder and bloodshed was not sectarian. What happened elsewhere later was different.

For me the book sounds like the one by Coogan on the Famine. Make it controversial to get more sales, a bit of pop history dressed up with selected sources, omission of more accurate/appropriate ones because they do not suit and some general waffle to bother the bewildered. No thanks.

(*) Dublin, 17th September, 1649.............And indeed, being in the heat of action, I forbade them to spare any that were in arms in the Town: and, I think, that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men;—divers of the officers and soldiers being fled over the Bridge into the other part of the Town, where about 100 of them possessed St. Peter's Church-steeple, some the west Gate, and others a strong Round Tower next the Gate called St. Sunday's. These, being summoned to yield to mercy, refused. Whereupon I ordered the steeple of St.' Peter's Church to be fired, when one of them was, heard to say in the midst of the flames: "God damn me, God confound me: I burn, I burn." .......... When they submitted, their officers were knocked on the head; and every tenth man of the soldiers killed; and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. .......
I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future.

Azwaldo55

As I understand it the unwritten rule of war in the 17th century was that when a town refused to parley or else broke an agreement of surrender the garrison and the inhabitants were fair game?

Sir Arthur Aston the governor of the town is reputed to have been beaten to death with his own wooden leg.

pedroeibar1

A parley and a truce are distinct. If 'Terms' were refused usually the garrison was decimated - i.e. one in ten was killed and usually all officers. At Carlow Terms were accepted and the garrison marched away, the townspeople were left unmolested. At Kilkenny the troops left and several of the officers were killed and all priests hanged. After Drogheda Cromwell/ Ireton 'softened' the tactics but priests usually got the noose. Waterford is a good example where Ireton's terms were very favourable when viewed against his position of strength and the Town's weakness. It even allowed three months (to settle their affairs) to those who would have to leave. That was the start of the expulsion of the Catholics from Munster. The whole purpose of 'Terms' was the preservation of life - no commander wants to lose his troops in attacking and storming a well-defended fortified town. It was in the interests of both sides and particularly that of the attacker to hold his word - hence the surrender of Waterford after Carlow. The Parliamentarian's evolving use of siege cannon and battering rams is a study in itself (I've yet to do it!)

Azwaldo55

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

A parley and a truce are distinct. If 'Terms' were refused usually the garrison was decimated - i.e. one in ten was killed and usually all officers. At Carlow Terms were accepted and the garrison marched away, the townspeople were left unmolested. At Kilkenny the troops left and several of the officers were killed and all priests hanged. After Drogheda Cromwell/ Ireton 'softened' the tactics but priests usually got the noose. Waterford is a good example where Ireton's terms were very favourable when viewed against his position of strength and the Town's weakness. It even allowed three months (to settle their affairs) to those who would have to leave. That was the start of the expulsion of the Catholics from Munster. The whole purpose of 'Terms' was the preservation of life - no commander wants to lose his troops in attacking and storming a well-defended fortified town. It was in the interests of both sides and particularly that of the attacker to hold his word - hence the surrender of Waterford after Carlow. The Parliamentarian's evolving use of siege cannon and battering rams is a study in itself (I've yet to do it!)

At Carlow wasn't a woman sent out to get water, captured and then persuaded to return because there was a weak point in the wall where there was a stairs and she was to hold up a candle to indicate the spot? The poor woman was blown to kingdom come when the cannons were fired at the weak point and the town was taken.

pedroeibar1

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

At Carlow wasn't a woman sent out to get water, captured and then persuaded to return because there was a weak point in the wall where there was a stairs and she was to hold up a candle to indicate the spot? The poor woman was blown to kingdom come when the cannons were fired at the weak point and the town was taken.

That story appears in the Halls' Tour of Ireland book but AFAIK it has no basis in fact, as it is most unlikely that she would have stayed to watch! Terms were offered / accepted and there was plenty of food, water and powder in the castle. However, Waller did attack one tower with cannon to 'speed up' the decision on the surrender. Carlow was isolated, Castlehaven could not reach it, some of his troops were taken from him and the Parliamentarians wanted it to improve the communications route to Dublin.

pedroeibar1

Slightly off-topic as it is not Drogheda, but it does show that not every town was 'violated'.
CROMWELL AT CARLOW. BY ROBERT MALCOMSON, ESQ. The journal of the Kilkenny and South-East of Ireland Archaeological Society, Ser. 1, Vol. III, pt. 1, pp. 119-128, 1854 Online here
Also mentions the Halls as the source of the 'perfidy' story but in slightly different terms

Ireton proceeded to Waterford, leaving Sir Hardress Waller in charge of affairs at Carlow, with directions, if necessary, to prosecute the siege with vigour.

No assistance reached the garrison, and the sequel is briefly told. Sir Hardress shortly after drew out two cannon, and battered a tower belonging to the castle, which much discomfited the garrison; after which he cannonaded the town and took it, when Bellew surrendered the castle upon articles.

The curious inquirer will find a copy of these articles in Ryan's “History and Antiquities of the County of Carlow,"pp. 185-6, where they are quoted from Borlase. They provided that the castle of Carlow, with the artillery, provision, arms, and furniture of war therein, should be forthwith delivered into the hands of Sir Hardress Waller; that all manner of persons in the castle should have quarter for their lives and goods, having one month's time allowed them for removal, and passes to carry them to what places they should desire; that all officers and soldiers within the garrison should march with their horses and marching arms, and have a safe convoy to Lea Castle, and a pass for ten days' march to Athlone (one of the remaining garrisons which maintained the royal cause); that all the " musquets within the said town should be allowed to march, with each of them one pound of powder, bullet, and match proportionable ;" and that the inhabitants should have liberty to live in the town, and enjoy their corn, paying such contributions as others in their condition.

These articles were strictly observed. The garrison marched out with the honours of war — the "musquets" with their pound of powder, bullets, and match — and the townsmen " enjoyed their corn" as theretofore.

Tom Reilly

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

New historical research suggests that Cromwell did not slaughter thousands of innocent men women and children at Drogheda but rather was pilloried decades later by post-Restoration Royalist historians eager to blacken the name of the late Lord Protector.

Cromwell after all committed regicide and forced many leading Royalists into exile and later as Charles II and his brother James II struggled against Parliament during their reigns, it made sense to produce black propaganda against him.

During the reign of William III and Mary II, Queen Anne and later the House of Hanover, Cromwell's usurpation of royal power made him a bogeyman as infamous as Guy Fawkes. It was only in the 19th century when Parliament finally came into its own and Victoria and her heirs became figure heads that Cromwell was rehabilitated as a great Briton.

The crisis that lead to the rise of parliamentarianism as a real force in British history was of course the failure of Charles I to defeat the Scottish Covenanters in 1639-1640 which set in motion the events that led to his execution and the emergence of the obscure country gentleman Cromwell. The leading regicides were elderly men who remembered the Catholic plots against England in the reign of Elizabeth I and James I. James and his retinue were young men who could have outlived their enemies and made a reactionary elderly Puritan parliament a memory. The core reason behind the English Civil War was taxation and overweening Royal power - the same reasons for the American Revolution over a century later. The subsequent monarchs of England all tried to restore an Absolute Monarchy. The memory of Cromwell put a spanner in the works.

You still around Azwaldo55? Just wondered why you started this post. Did my article pique your interest in the possibility that the verdict of history might be wrong about Cromwell at Drogheda and Wexford, or did it irk you like it has done other contributors to this forum? Like Pedro, you seem to have a handle on this period of history. Surely you can see that it's possible that Cromwell is innocent of committing wholesale civilian atrocities in 1649 - and that the wars that devastated the country during that period are a different ball game, kettle of sharks, altogether.

Azwaldo55

Tom Reilly wrote: »

You still around Azwaldo55? Just wondered why you started this post. Did my article pique your interest in the possibility that the verdict of history might be wrong about Cromwell at Drogheda and Wexford, or did it irk you like it has done other contributors to this forum? Like Pedro, you seem to have a handle on this period of history. Surely you can see that it's possible that Cromwell is innocent of committing wholesale civilian atrocities in 1649 - and that the wars that devastated the country during that period are a different ball game, kettle of sharks, altogether.

I started the thread because as Henry Ford said history is bunk.
The popular image of the heroic Cromwell in England survives from propaganda of the English anti-royalist republicanism of the late 19th century and the popular image of Cromwell in Ireland as the blackest of villains comes from Irish republican propaganda. Irish Catholics in the 18th century backed the Stuart pretenders which is why the Catholics were persecuted by penal laws. There was talk in some Irish nationalist circles in the early 20th century of inviting a German prince of the Stuart line to become King of Ireland.
However Irish republicans were hated by the Catholic Church who until well into the 20th century were sympathetic to absolute monarchs and later the 20th century dictators and hostile to modern democracy, socialism, the welfare state and secularism. Cromwell who had Charles I beheaded was therefore a hate figure and mutated out of all recognition from the real man of history who was hostile to the suffocating power of Catholic Church and Absolute Monarchs sentiments which should make him a figure Irish republicans might actually sympathize with.
Cromwell was a religious fanatic and the invasion of Ireland in 1649 proved to be a disaster for the Old English and what remained of Gaelic Irish civilization but he must be judged by facts and what can be proven rather than prevailing myths.

Tom Reilly

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I started the thread because as Henry Ford said history is bunk.
The popular image of the heroic Cromwell in England survives from propaganda of the English anti-royalist republicanism of the late 19th century and the popular image of Cromwell in Ireland as the blackest of villains comes from Irish republican propaganda. Irish Catholics in the 18th century backed the Stuart pretenders which is why the Catholics were persecuted by penal laws. There was talk in some Irish nationalist circles in the early 20th century of inviting a German prince of the Stuart line to become King of Ireland.
However Irish republicans were hated by the Catholic Church who until well into the 20th century were sympathetic to absolute monarchs and later the 20th century dictators and hostile to modern democracy, socialism, the welfare state and secularism. Cromwell who had Charles I beheaded was therefore a hate figure and mutated out of all recognition from the real man of history who was hostile to the suffocating power of Catholic Church and Absolute Monarchs sentiments which should make him a figure Irish republicans might actually sympathize with.
Cromwell was a religious fanatic and the invasion of Ireland in 1649 proved to be a disaster for the Old English and what remained of Gaelic Irish civilization but he must be judged by facts and what can be proven rather than prevailing myths.

I don't believe I can take issue with any of the above. However, just one thing - Cromwell being a religious fanatic. There were far more members of the Long Parliament who were more anti-Catholic than Cromwell, Pymm and Prynne for instance. And get this (although I suspect you might know this already) - historians including Prof John Morrill now believe that there is evidence that Cromwell was not in favour of the Act of Settlement and the subsequent Act of Explanation, both of which were to morph into the Cromwellian Plantation of Ireland. Furthermore, Cromwell appears to have left the 'running' of Ireland largely to others when he became Protector. As John Morrill has recently said, 'By blaming Cromwell for the much more lasting horrors of the Comonwealth period in Ireland, we let those really responsible off the hook'.

Now that's gonna put the cat among the pigeons.

Me? I'm just talking about deliberate civilian atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford. The rest of this stuff is for historians to discuss. And I ain't a historian.

Azwaldo55

Tom Reilly wrote: »

I don't believe I can take issue with any of the above. However, just one thing - Cromwell being a religious fanatic. There were far more members of the Long Parliament who were more anti-Catholic than Cromwell, Pymm and Prynne for instance. And get this (although I suspect you might know this already) - historians including Prof John Morrill now believe that there is evidence that Cromwell was not in favour of the Act of Settlement and the subsequent Act of Explanation, both of which were to morph into the Cromwellian Plantation of Ireland. Furthermore, Cromwell appears to have left the 'running' of Ireland largely to others when he became Protector. As John Morrill has recently said, 'By blaming Cromwell for the much more lasting horrors of the Comonwealth period in Ireland, we let those really responsible off the hook'.

Now that's gonna put the cat among the pigeons.

Me? I'm just talking about deliberate civilian atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford. The rest of this stuff is for historians to discuss. And I ain't a historian.

Cromwell was a monarch in all but name when he died when the title of Lord Protector passed to his son. He seriously contemplated actually being crowned King. Had he done so the House of Cromwell and their descendants might still be ruling England to this very day. When he died Cromwell was more powerful than any English monarch since it was he who truly united the Three Kingdoms and copper-fastened English control of what became known as the British Isles.
The reigns of Charles II and James II were merely an interlude because Cromwell's rise from commoner to the heights of power prefigured the emergence of the Prime Minster as the real power in the land and of course the rise of men like Lincoln and Eisenhower who rose from humble beginnings to inhabit the office of President of the United States. The American Revolution was thematically a continuation of the English Civil War.
If the massacre really did occur in Drogheda it functioned much like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bringing about a quicker end to the war in Ireland.

pedroeibar1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

The fact that you feel my 'personal attacks' on you ……certainly do no credit to me, that's a given. I'm a volatile and antagonistic provocateur, devoid of decorum. Fora like these bring out the worst in me…... I'm an asshole. So sue me.

That sums it up really. You have again resorted to invective; you have yet to say why we should believe you, or give a source, chapter and verse. You simply claim to have read “every source from 1649,” a remark as puerile as your comments above. When you write drivel like that why should I (or anyone else for that matter) bother to take you seriously and respond? Why should I prolong a thread just to allow you obtain some cheap publicity for a book that has arguments you have failed to substantiate? In a business advisory capacity I'd tell my client to respond on point/topic or else STFU and stop digging.

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That sums it up really. You have again resorted to invective; you have yet to say why we should believe you, or give a source, chapter and verse. You simply claim to have read “every source from 1649,” a remark as puerile as your comments above. When you write drivel like that why should I (or anyone else for that matter) bother to take you seriously and respond? Why should I prolong a thread just to allow you obtain some cheap publicity for a book that has arguments you have failed to substantiate? In a business advisory capacity I'd tell my client to respond on point/topic or else STFU and stop digging.

Wow. It gets even worse. I didn't claim to have 'read' every source. I said I have REPRODUCED the sources in the book. Business advisory capacity eh? Client? STFU (whatever the hell that is)? Interesting. Careful you don't expose yourself. I, on the other hand have no choice.

I have also said that I won't get a single cent for my book so you can say what you like about publicity. I don't care about money. (Say what you like about that. You'll be joining a long queue.)

Now, are you going to wuss out - or can we do this here please? I'm ready to take you on in this public forum with any argument you make about Cromwell in Ireland in 1649. You have already made an allegation about Cromwell, Hewson and A (not 'The') Perfect Diurnal and by doing this you in some way imply that these primary sources contradict my argument. So stop avoiding the issue and tell me how. Because I am ready, willing and able to outline a deluge of facts here. And if anybody else is reading this then they might be interested to see what you meant as well.

But I say again; neither Cromwell's letters, Hewson's account or A Perfect Diurnal say anything about deliberate civilian deaths at Drogheda or Wexford. So please please tell me I'm wrong. Because you will just embarrass yourself. See, if you believe they do - then you're wrong. Wrong I tells ya.

Hey - here's an olive branch. Forget about Cromwell, Hewson and Pecke. That's just nonsense. Give me something else that contradicts my argument. I can't wait for this. If the early modern experts can't knock me off my perch with sound reasonable and meaningful argument (yeah, all you early modern experts, come and have a go if you think you're hard enough) you certainly won't be able to.

Go on. Hit me. Thomas á Wood, Irish ecclesiastics, The 'and many inhabitants' issue, Petition of the people of Wexford, James Buck, John Evelyn, the arguments presented in Micheál Ó'Siochrú's God's Executioner. Choose your poison.

God, I'm good.

Of course, you can just melt into the backround and say nothing. Save face and all that.

Touché

pedroeibar1

You have made assertions that fly in the face of 350 years of historical writing and research by hundreds of historians, amateur and professional. It is your role to put forward some proof. Despite repeated request you have singularly failed to do so and have resorted to name calling. I’m out of here.

jonniebgood1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

...

Thankfully, those without an axe to grind, or inherent historical baggage will see that my case in Cromwell's favour has merit. In my opinion of course, with this new book, it's now watertight. Open-minded and discerning readers will agree. And there are plenty of them. That's been my experience on this journey; people who see Cromwell as the murdering git who massacred the ordinary, unarmed people of Drogheda and Wexford are rarely willing to even consider the possibility that all is not as it seems. Predictable? Certainly. Sad? Definitely.

Referring to your book is not how the forum works. Please refer to your source material.

As per forum charter "If you cannot provide a source or reason for holding a controversial opinion then it may be better to keep it to yourself as this could be seen as trolling (i.e. controversial opinions are fine but they must be based on a source of some kind)."

In general future posts by all users need to be conducted in a more conciliatory manner.

Note- Off topic posts have been deleted where possible.

Regards
Moderator

Tom Reilly

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Referring to your book is not how the forum works. Please refer to your source material.

As per forum charter "If you cannot provide a source or reason for holding a controversial opinion then it may be better to keep it to yourself as this could be seen as trolling (i.e. controversial opinions are fine but they must be based on a source of some kind)."

In general future posts by all users need to be conducted in a more conciliatory manner.

Note- Off topic posts have been deleted where possible.

Regards
Moderator

Don't know if I'm going to be barred here, but what the heck. I am simply asking the poster to elaborate on his allegations. As I said, I fully intend to outline my arguments here with primary source material. As you have seen he/she has alleged that Cromwell, Hewson and a contemporary newsbook in some way contradicts my argument - which is pretty well known. He very obviously opted out of the discussion.

I'm surprised that you have intervened already. But that's your prerogative.

Now, when the poster defends, and elaborates on, his allegations, I will defend my position. And my position depends on his/hers. I'm not precious about my source material and am happy to present it here.

Is that not fair?

jonniebgood1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Don't know if I'm going to be barred here, but what the heck. I am simply asking the poster to elaborate on his allegations. As I said, I fully intend to outline my arguments here with primary source material. As you have seen he/she has alleged that Cromwell, Hewson and a contemporary newsbook in some way contradicts my argument - which is pretty well known. He very obviously opted out of the discussion.

I'm surprised that you have intervened already. But that's your prerogative.

Now, when the poster defends, and elaborates on, his allegations, I will defend my position. And my position depends on his/hers. I'm not precious about my source material and am happy to present it here.

Is that not fair?

No.
I am being fair IMO and your next post should be to provide proof (source) as you have been asked. If you have issues doing this you PM me. Anything else other than this will give me a decision to make regarding your purpose here.

Moderator

Jesus.

The Mods seem to be quite heavy-handed in this section. I had a post deleted today without being told why, even though it was totally inoffensive and lighthearted.

Is there a law saying amateur historians and history buffs are required to have had a sense of humor bypass before they can contribute here?

Tom Reilly

Jesus. wrote: »

The Mods seem to be quite heavy-handed in this section. I had a post deleted today without being told why, even though it was totally inoffensive and lighthearted.

Is there a law saying amateur historians and history buffs are required to have had a sense of humor bypass before they can contribute here?

Not sure if this is gonna count as my next post but that's a good point Jesus. Moderator - I'm new to this craic. How do I PM you?

jonniebgood1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Not sure if this is gonna count as my next post but that's a good point Jesus. Moderator - I'm new to this craic. How do I PM you?

I won't count it as your next post so :pac::pac::pac:
Click on my name and you should see an option for private message.

jonniebgood1

Jesus. wrote: »

The Mods seem to be quite heavy-handed in this section. I had a post deleted today without being told why, even though it was totally inoffensive and lighthearted.

Is there a law saying amateur historians and history buffs are required to have had a sense of humor bypass before they can contribute here?

Your deleted post had humour??? :eek:

I deleted about 12 comments, some were lighthearted and inoffensive, some were becoming personalised and could cause offence. All of them were off topic and in future if you wish to question this type of thing you do it by PM also.

Heavy handed would be handing you an infraction for the quoted post and you will note that this did not happen. So take on board this less than subtle hint.

Back on topic please.
Moderator.

Arsemageddon

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Poop eh? Hmm. Charming.

Of course if I was being honest I would say it is quite disingenuous to describe my work as 'poop'. And you're right I am indeed the author of the quotation above, which I imagine is taken from an article I submitted to another forum recently. This 'new evidence' is contained in my latest book 'Cromwell was Framed (Ireland 1649)', which I can virtually guarantee that you, my friend, will also see as 'poop'. No question.

Thankfully, those without an axe to grind, or inherent historical baggage will see that my case in Cromwell's favour has merit. In my opinion of course, with this new book, it's now watertight. Open-minded and discerning readers will agree. And there are plenty of them. That's been my experience on this journey; people who see Cromwell as the murdering git who massacred the ordinary, unarmed people of Drogheda and Wexford are rarely willing to even consider the possibility that all is not as it seems. Predictable? Certainly. Sad? Definitely.

Your making a lot of assumptions about me in that post. I was a bit harsh by calling your book poop, for that I apologise. However, I did buy your first book on Cromwell when it came out and I'm sorry to say I was very underwhelmed by the 'evidence' you presented.

I don't know of any serious modern historian who claims that the entire population of the town were put to the sword or even that the civilians of Drogheda were the main victims of the massacre. Most accounts give a figure of 3500 killed within the town with between 500-700 being civilians. You seem to be fixated on rebutting an over-the-top 19th century claim that no one with a basic knowledge of Irish history takes seriously.

The claim that you can provide 'water tight' evidence to show that Cromwell was 'framed' (for what?) is interesting to say the least. The orders given to the army about protecting civilian life at the outset of the Irish campaign are all very well, but what actually happened during the campaign and in it's aftermath illustrate that these orders/intentions were quickly set aside/ignored when the campaign got under way. If your going to argue that there is no smoking gun that connects Cromwell to the massacre then there is no way I'm buying it. Cromwell was the army's commander, he was ultimately responsible for what they did. Actions speak louder than words.

Cromwell subsequently justified his actions by conflating the exaggerated but real massacres of Protestant settlers by Catholics with the Royalist garrison at Drogheda and then states that his actions there would terrify other towns into submission (which it did).

"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"

This is the kind of news-speak gobbledegook we got from Bush and Blair when they were justifying their actions in Iraq, or the stuff Putin comes out with when talking about Ukraine.

Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is not based solely on what happened at Drogheda (or indeed Wexford), it's based on the transplantation of 50,000 civilians to the Caribbean, the persecution of the Catholic population (especially the clergy) and the confiscation and redistribution of land. We are still dealing with the fallout from these actions 360 years later.

pedroeibar1

Apart from the absence of any sources for the claims by the author, an underlying issue is the incorrect manner in which Drogheda is being used as an example of Cromwell’s demeanour. The issue is far more complex than the basis from which these assertions are made.

The behaviour of Cromwell, his generals, his army and officers varied enormously from town to town, from Ireland to England, from treatment of Irish Catholics to English Catholics and from year to year. In Ireland Cromwell was conducting an ‘overseas’ campaign, did not have easy access to pay for his troops and had difficulty with supplies. Tactics had to adapt to the prevailing conditions. Any single battle event cannot be representative of Cromwell’s personality or campaigns.

As the War progressed the more ‘difficult’ officers, particularly those of a strict Puritan bent were sent to the dumping ground of Ireland, where these zealots could be used more effectively. Additionally, the newer troops, mainly conscripts, were sent to Ireland. Their lack of discipline was a concern, as en route to Ireland they often plundered English villages. E.g. Firth, in his ‘Cromwell’s Army, page 297

Fairfax issued a severe proclamation against these disorders, confessing that soldiers on their march for Ireland " have and still do harass, plunder and act great violences and insolences in the country," and ordering all officers and soldiers that quartered in or near such places to assist the countrypeople in the forcible repression of such outrages. (The Moderate, 13th to 20th March, 1649. The proclamation is dated 17th March.)

The early members of the Roundhead army – and those who had ‘length of service’ in it- were highly disciplined and a very strict regime of punishment on both officers and men was used to enforce this. Cromwell had used the training/discipline/code/methods of Gustavus Adolphus as a basis for the ‘Model Army’. (The latter is reported as saying to a soldier who begged his life having been sentenced to hang for plundering - ' My son,’ says the king to him, ' it is better that I should now punish thee, than that the wrath of God for thy misdeeds, and his judgments, should fall down upon me, and thee, and all of us here present" (The Swedish Intelligencer, 1633, pt. iii., pp. 23-27).) Cromwell’s religious zeal extended to this level of belief and there are several examples of punishments – particularly for profanity - quoted in Prendergast’s Settlement of Ireland book.

The number of tracts, pamphlets and reports that emerged after the 1641 Depositions, all of which excoriated the ‘mere’ Irish (and Catholics in particular), were widely distributed, read and believed even by the educated Englishman. A typical title is "A Late and True Relation from Ireland of the Warlike and bloody Proceedings of the Rebellious Papists in that Kingdome from November 1 to this present" (1641, London). These set the scene for ‘Paddy bashing’ and the typical ignorance of the English of Irish events/ history. After all, Ireland had very nearly succeeded in overthrowing English rule, and that became a deciding factor in Cromwell’s outlook on and treatment of the powerful Irish Catholics. In England he was quite prepared to allow religious liberty and even sent an envoy to discuss this with Pope Alexander VII and ‘do a deal’ on private worship provided Rome did not preach against the Protectorate.
A wider reading of the Cromwellian campaigns in Ireland, the training and make-up of the army would give a greater understanding of the events at Drogheda. As I said here

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Simply, Cromwell ordered ‘No Quarter’, no quarter was given, he then totally lost control of his troops and he had set the scene for the civilian atrocities by his own actions.

I am not (in the author’s words) one of those

Tom Reilly wrote: »

people who see Cromwell as the murdering git who massacred the ordinary, unarmed people of Drogheda and Wexford are rarely willing to even consider the possibility that all is not as it seems.

I’m descended from a Cromwellian officer (three of his brothers were Royalists, two others died in the campaign) hence my interest in the period and it would interest me if the author’s claims could ‘hold water’.
Nothing Reilly has written to date would lead me to accept his claims or that this book has merit.

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have made assertions that fly in the face of 350 years of historical writing and research by hundreds of historians, amateur and professional. It is your role to put forward some proof. Despite repeated request you have singularly failed to do so and have resorted to name calling. I’m out of here.

Okay here goes nothing. That Moderator is a lovely chap. I don't know what the problem is...


Let’s deal with specifics, shall we. My focus is very narrow. I've seen other posts since I starting writing this one and hopefully, I will get to them anon. Did Cromwell deliberately massacre any civilians in Drogheda and Wexford in 1649? That is the question. The only question. The nub. The issue. The thing that makes people annoyed with me.

So Number 1. The ‘Cromwell ‘ allegation from Pedroeibar:

Many observers have claimed that Cromwell himself admitted to killing ‘many inhabitants’ at Drogheda. This is because of a list of the slain that is attached to a letter (battle report) that he wrote to parliament on 27 September 1649 that is reproduced in the official parliamentary pamphlet - Letters from Ireland, relating the Several great successes it hath pleased God to give unto the Parliaments Forces there in the taking of Drogheda, Trym, Dundalk, Carlingford, and the Nury. Together with a list of the chief commanders, and the number of the officers and soldiers slain in Drogheda. . . . (1649) Wing (2nd ed.) / L1778, reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575) [7].

The original letter does not survive. In my book I have proved that this list was written on 22 September FIVE days before Cromwell wrote his letter. This is evident by John Dillingham’s (author of The Moderate Intelligencer) correspondent in Ireland who reported the same list to Dillingham on that date. (John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575, [10]). Furthermore. I have shown that the list is quite clearly separate from the letter with a clear black demarcation line separating the list from the letter. Spelling differences also prevail indicating that several hands were at work and not just Cromwell’s.

(I could post the offending page of the pamphlet here if I could post images, but apparently it’s too early in my Boards.ie career here to do that. Hey Moderator! What you reckon?)

I have also proved that seven newsbooks print the same list (with differences in some names) in the early weeks of October 1649. Five of those newsbooks leave out the words ‘and many inhabitants’ and two print them. Here are the seven references:

Bernard Alsop, The Perfect Weekly Account . . . Wednesday, September 26 to Wednesday, 3 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [8], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [8] 10.

The Kingdomes Faithfull and impartial Scout, Number 36, Friday, 28 September to Saturday, 5 October, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [16], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [16]

Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]

The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, Number 331, Tuesday, September 25 to Tuesday, October 2, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [5], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [5]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages in Parliament Number 322, Monday September 24 to Monday October 1, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [13], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [13]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some passages in Parliament Number 323, Monday October 1 to Monday October 8, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [17], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [17]

John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [10]

In God’s Executioner, historian Micheál Ó’Siochrú misses two of these newsbooks. I have also proved that NONE of the newsbook writers attribute the list to Cromwell. I
Of course the crucial caveat here is that these ‘inhabitants’ might well have been armed. Because I have also discovered that Dillingham reports that some of the civilians of Drogheda got involved in the battle. The Moderate Intelligencer (30 August – 6 September) provides the evidence. Dillingham’s correspondent writes that Ormond “furnished it [Drogheda]well with all necessities, every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms, is in posture of war.”

Ormond cleared the town of all superfluous and suspected people. This is a seminal piece of evidence not usually quoted in the context of Cromwell at Drogheda. And yet it could easily be interpreted to imply that all ‘superfluous’ people, including men – not inclined to take up arms - and women and children were cleared from the town. Indeed it also implies that some inhabitants may well have taken up arms since every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms was in a posture of war. Unlike The Man in the Moon and Mercurius Elencticus, The Moderate Intelligencer was considered to be the one of the most reliable and respected broadsheets of its day. Dillingham, its author, who was renowned for his excellent contacts with both parliamentary officials and army leaders, seemed to portray an open mind and an impartial perspective on contemporary events to the point where his publication is often called The Times of its day. So if we don’t ignore Dillingham’s army contact’s evidence then we must assume that the ‘superfluous’ people in Drogheda were removed from the town.
So regarding this particular piece of evidence it is absolutely the case that we cannot be sure that Cromwell wrote ‘and many inhabitants’. And what’s more, if inhabitants did die, there is now evidence to suggest that anyone who was inclined to took up arms against parliament.

In that same issue of The Moderate Intelligencer Dillingham also provides evidence that proves most of the population were not even in Drogheda at the time when he writes:
“Ormond ‘lies between Tredagh and Trim, intending if he can to be a spectator at the siege of the first, if not of both, which by the advantage of the river, he hopes to do rather than by the valour of his men; he hath cleared Tredagh of all superfluous and suspected persons”.

Why does everybody assume that the local inhabitants stayed in the town? Granted, we do not know a lot about the movements of the inhabitants but there are some facts that are quite clear. Firstly, there was a five-month long siege of the town just eight years earlier that had dire consequences on the food and supply levels of the civilian population. Is it sensible to assume that those same inhabitants would simply stay put when they could easily flee? They had ample time to do so with the Ironsides camped outside the town for a week before hostilities began.

Secondly, we know that Aston was prepared for a long siege and that they had stocked up on supplies that would last for months. (The Kingdom’s Faithfull and Impartial Scout reported on the 5 October 1649 that there were victuals stocked up in the town to last nine months.) Thirdly, it would seem to make sense that with a population of 3,000 people and a garrison of 3,000 soldiers that a reduction in the number of mouths to feed would be an obvious military decision to make.

But that’s not the only evidence we have for civilians being dispatched from the town. We already know that Dean Nicholas Bernard’s wife and children are documented as being ‘sent out of the town’. And just to copper-fasten the suggestion that this action was desirable in order to conduct a long siege, which was exactly the plan, Ormond does exactly the same thing at Wexford. In a letter to the mayor of Wexford on 9 October, 1649, two days before the Parliamentarian army managed to force their way into the town, and still hoping for a long siege there, still outside the walls of Wexford, Ormond explains why:

"Wee are come hither to countenance the maintenance and to relieve the necessities of the towne, and doe find upon examination of the conditions thereof that provision of victuals wilbe the greatest want in all probability to draw any distresse thereon, and withal finde the Country here soe exhausted that it wilbe difficult to supply the Towne with provision for all sortes of people there. And therefore pray and require you after examination of each Inhabitants provision that you send out the unnecessary people, as ould men, women and children with that expedition that whilst wee are here, we may send them whither they propose to go themselves most safely."

We also know that within the town of Drogheda there was a civilian conspiracy to betray the place to Cromwell. The scheme of Lady Wilmot (Sir Arthur Aston’s grandmother) and her several espionage associates was exposed when her messenger, a young boy, was caught with letters in his possession that were destined for Parliamentarian hands. One of her co-conspirators was a Lady Blayney whose letter (signed A.B.) to Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes (Colonel John Ffolk became Governor of Drogheda in 1650 according to the Corporation of Drogheda records.) opened with the line

‘Sir, The hearing of your coming this way is a great joy to me, but it has driven all the lords away, and my Ladie Moore.’

This is further evidence that non-military personnel had departed the scene. With the conspiracy exposed, Aston banished the undercover agents to the monastery at nearby Mellifont, where (it would make sense that) the town’s civilians might have been also seeking refuge.

That’s just Cromwell. Jeez, this is fricken time consuming…

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You have made assertions that fly in the face of 350 years of historical writing and research by hundreds of historians, amateur and professional. It is your role to put forward some proof. Despite repeated request you have singularly failed to do so and have resorted to name calling. I’m out of here.

Okay here goes nothing. That Moderator is a lovely chap. I don't know what the problem is...


Let’s deal with specifics, shall we. My focus is very narrow. I've seen other posts since I starting writing this one and hopefully, I will get to them anon. Did Cromwell deliberately massacre any civilians in Drogheda and Wexford in 1649? That is the question. The only question. The nub. The issue. The thing that makes people annoyed with me.

So Number 1. The ‘Cromwell ‘ allegation from Pedroeibar:

Many observers have claimed that Cromwell himself admitted to killing ‘many inhabitants’ at Drogheda. This is because of a list of the slain that is attached to a letter (battle report) that he wrote to parliament on 27 September 1649 that is reproduced in the official parliamentary pamphlet - Letters from Ireland, relating the Several great successes it hath pleased God to give unto the Parliaments Forces there in the taking of Drogheda, Trym, Dundalk, Carlingford, and the Nury. Together with a list of the chief commanders, and the number of the officers and soldiers slain in Drogheda. . . . (1649) Wing (2nd ed.) / L1778, reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575) [7].

The original letter does not survive. In my book I have proved that this list was written on 22 September FIVE days before Cromwell wrote his letter. This is evident by John Dillingham’s (author of The Moderate Intelligencer) correspondent in Ireland who reported the same list to Dillingham on that date. (John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575, [10]). Furthermore. I have shown that the list is quite clearly separate from the letter with a clear black demarcation line separating the list from the letter. Spelling differences also prevail indicating that several hands were at work and not just Cromwell’s.

(I could post the offending page of the pamphlet here if I could post images, but apparently it’s too early in my Boards.ie career here to do that. Hey Moderator! What you reckon?)

I have also proved that seven newsbooks print the same list (with differences in some names) in the early weeks of October 1649. Five of those newsbooks leave out the words ‘and many inhabitants’ and two print them. Here are the seven references:

Bernard Alsop, The Perfect Weekly Account . . . Wednesday, September 26 to Wednesday, 3 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [8], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [8] 10.

The Kingdomes Faithfull and impartial Scout, Number 36, Friday, 28 September to Saturday, 5 October, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [16], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [16]

Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]

The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, Number 331, Tuesday, September 25 to Tuesday, October 2, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [5], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [5]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages in Parliament Number 322, Monday September 24 to Monday October 1, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [13], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [13]

Samuel Pecke, A Perfect Diurnall of Some passages in Parliament Number 323, Monday October 1 to Monday October 8, 1649 Thomason / E.533 [17], reel position: Thomason / 83:E.533 [17]

John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [10]

In God’s Executioner, historian Micheál Ó’Siochrú misses two of these newsbooks. I have also proved that NONE of the newsbook writers attribute the list to Cromwell. I
Of course the crucial caveat here is that these ‘inhabitants’ might well have been armed. Because I have also discovered that Dillingham reports that some of the civilians of Drogheda got involved in the battle. The Moderate Intelligencer (30 August – 6 September) provides the evidence. Dillingham’s correspondent writes that Ormond “furnished it [Drogheda]well with all necessities, every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms, is in posture of war.”

In that same issue of The Moderate Intelligencer Dillingham also provides evidence that proves most of the population were not even in Drogheda at the time when he writes:
“Ormond ‘lies between Tredagh and Trim, intending if he can to be a spectator at the siege of the first, if not of both, which by the advantage of the river, he hopes to do rather than by the valour of his men; he hath cleared Tredagh of all superfluous and suspected persons”.

Why does everybody assume that the local inhabitants stayed in the town? Granted, we do not know a lot about the movements of the inhabitants but there are some facts that are quite clear. Firstly, there was a five-month long siege of the town just eight years earlier that had dire consequences on the food and supply levels of the civilian population. Is it sensible to assume that those same inhabitants would simply stay put when they could easily flee? They had ample time to do so with the Ironsides camped outside the town for a week before hostilities began.

Secondly, we know that Aston was prepared for a long siege and that they had stocked up on supplies that would last for months. (The Kingdom’s Faithfull and Impartial Scout reported on the 5 October 1649 that there were victuals stocked up in the town to last nine months.) Thirdly, it would seem to make sense that with a population of 3,000 people and a garrison of 3,000 soldiers that a reduction in the number of mouths to feed would be an obvious military decision to make.

But that’s not the only evidence we have for civilians being dispatched from the town. We already know that Dean Nicholas Bernard’s wife and children are documented as being ‘sent out of the town’. And just to copper-fasten the suggestion that this action was desirable in order to conduct a long siege, which was exactly the plan, Ormond does exactly the same thing at Wexford. In a letter to the mayor of Wexford on 9 October, 1649, two days before the Parliamentarian army managed to force their way into the town, and still hoping for a long siege there, still outside the walls of Wexford, Ormond explains why:

"Wee are come hither to countenance the maintenance and to relieve the necessities of the towne, and doe find upon examination of the conditions thereof that provision of victuals wilbe the greatest want in all probability to draw any distresse thereon, and withal finde the Country here soe exhausted that it wilbe difficult to supply the Towne with provision for all sortes of people there. And therefore pray and require you after examination of each Inhabitants provision that you send out the unnecessary people, as ould men, women and children with that expedition that whilst wee are here, we may send them whither they propose to go themselves most safely."

Ormond cleared the town of all superfluous and suspected people. This is a seminal piece of evidence not usually quoted in the context of Cromwell at Drogheda. And yet it could easily be interpreted to imply that all ‘superfluous’ people, including men – not inclined to take up arms - and women and children were cleared from the town. Indeed it also implies that some inhabitants may well have taken up arms since every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms was in a posture of war. Unlike The Man in the Moon and Mercurius Elencticus, The Moderate Intelligencer was considered to be the one of the most reliable and respected broadsheets of its day. Dillingham, its author, who was renowned for his excellent contacts with both parliamentary officials and army leaders, seemed to portray an open mind and an impartial perspective on contemporary events to the point where his publication is often called The Times of its day. So if we don’t ignore Dillingham’s army contact’s evidence then we must assume that the ‘superfluous’ people in Drogheda were removed from the town.
So regarding this particular piece of evidence it is absolutely the case that we cannot be sure that Cromwell wrote ‘and many inhabitants’. And what’s more, if inhabitants did die, there is now evidence to suggest that anyone who was inclined to took up arms against parliament.

We also know that within the town of Drogheda there was a civilian conspiracy to betray the place to Cromwell. The scheme of Lady Wilmot (Sir Arthur Aston’s grandmother) and her several espionage associates was exposed when her messenger, a young boy, was caught with letters in his possession that were destined for Parliamentarian hands. One of her co-conspirators was a Lady Blayney whose letter (signed A.B.) to Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes (Colonel John Ffolk became Governor of Drogheda in 1650 according to the Corporation of Drogheda records.) opened with the line

‘Sir, The hearing of your coming this way is a great joy to me, but it has driven all the lords away, and my Ladie Moore.’

This is further evidence that non-military personnel had departed the scene. With the conspiracy exposed, Aston banished the undercover agents to the monastery at nearby Mellifont, where (it would make sense that) the town’s civilians might have been also seeking refuge.

That’s just Cromwell. Jeez, this is fricken time consuming…

Tom Reilly

Seem to have posted this twice. No idea what I'm doing...

Tom Reilly

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your making a lot of assumptions about me in that post. I was a bit harsh by calling your book poop, for that I apologise. However, I did buy your first book on Cromwell when it came out and I'm sorry to say I was very underwhelmed by the 'evidence' you presented.

I don't know of any serious modern historian who claims that the entire population of the town were put to the sword or even that the civilians of Drogheda were the main victims of the massacre. Most accounts give a figure of 3500 killed within the town with between 500-700 being civilians. You seem to be fixated on rebutting an over-the-top 19th century claim that no one with a basic knowledge of Irish history takes seriously.

The claim that you can provide 'water tight' evidence to show that Cromwell was 'framed' (for what?) is interesting to say the least. The orders given to the army about protecting civilian life at the outset of the Irish campaign are all very well, but what actually happened during the campaign and in it's aftermath illustrate that these orders/intentions were quickly set aside/ignored when the campaign got under way. If your going to argue that there is no smoking gun that connects Cromwell to the massacre then there is no way I'm buying it. Cromwell was the army's commander, he was ultimately responsible for what they did. Actions speak louder than words.

Cromwell subsequently justified his actions by conflating the exaggerated but real massacres of Protestant settlers by Catholics with the Royalist garrison at Drogheda and then states that his actions there would terrify other towns into submission (which it did).

"I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret"

This is the kind of news-speak gobbledegook we got from Bush and Blair when they were justifying their actions in Iraq, or the stuff Putin comes out with when talking about Ukraine.

Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is not based solely on what happened at Drogheda (or indeed Wexford), it's based on the transplantation of 50,000 civilians to the Caribbean, the persecution of the Catholic population (especially the clergy) and the confiscation and redistribution of land. We are still dealing with the fallout from these actions 360 years later.

Apology accepted. I think I love you. Do you have any idea of the number of people who haven't reached - and will never reach - the place where you are now.

In 2004, Folens published Earthlink 5th Class. On page 87 the following words are printed: ‘Cromwell captured Drogheda. About 3,000 men, women and children were killed.’ The Educational Company of Ireland released Timeline in 2008. A paragraph on page 223 reads, ‘He [Cromwell] first laid siege to Drogheda. He was determined to make an example of the town. When he captured it he slaughtered the entire population.’ There is no ambiguity there.

Is it any wonder people are confused?

I take issue with you that the soldiers ran amok. That's speculation, which I go into in depth in the book.

Here's an idea. (If the Moderator agrees). I'm perfectly happy to e-mail anybody that wants it - a soft copy of this famous book of mine. Just PM me, give me your e-mail address and I'd be happy to send it to you or anyone who wants it - AT NO COST.

I'm not expecting to change mind-sets. But you might as well see what the hell I'm on about. It's far too time consuming to post large posts here. I feel like I'm writing the book again.

pedroeibar1

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Let’s deal with specifics, shall we. My focus is very narrow. I've seen other posts since I starting writing this one and hopefully, I will get to them anon. Did Cromwell deliberately massacre any civilians in Drogheda and Wexford in 1649? That is the question. The only question. The nub. The issue. The thing that makes people annoyed with me.

Not annoyed with you, just repeatedly asking for sources should not have been necessary.
Much of what you have written has little bearing on what you claim. What you call ‘evidence’ is not that, it is conjecture and assumption. The ‘civilian conspiracies’ to betray Drogheda you mention are a red herring.

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Many observers have claimed that Cromwell himself admitted to killing ‘many inhabitants’ at Drogheda. This is because of a list of the slain that is attached to a letter (battle report) that he wrote to parliament on 27 September 1649 that is reproduced in the official parliamentary pamphlet - Letters from Ireland, relating the Several great successes it hath pleased God to give unto the Parliaments Forces there in the taking of Drogheda, Trym, Dundalk, Carlingford, and the Nury. Together with a list of the chief commanders, and the number of the officers and soldiers slain in Drogheda. . . . (1649) Wing (2nd ed.) / L1778, reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575) [7].

The original letter does not survive. In my book I have proved that this list was written on 22 September FIVE days before Cromwell wrote his letter. This is evident by John Dillingham’s (author of The Moderate Intelligencer) correspondent in Ireland who reported the same list to Dillingham on that date. (John Dillingham, The Moderate Intelligencer Number 237, Thursday September 27 to Thursday October 4, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [10], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575, [10]). Furthermore. I have shown that the list is quite clearly separate from the letter with a clear black demarcation line separating the list from the letter. Spelling differences also prevail indicating that several hands were at work and not just Cromwell’s.

I have also proved that seven newsbooks print the same list (with differences in some names) in the early weeks of October 1649. Five of those newsbooks leave out the words ‘and many inhabitants’ and two print them. Here are the seven references: (snip)

In God’s Executioner, historian Micheál Ó’Siochrú misses two of these newsbooks. I have also proved that NONE of the newsbook writers attribute the list to Cromwell. I

So what? Pick seven newspapers today and read the same story – how many will be identical? The ‘facts’ will be similar but the detail will be quite at variance. How many Iraqis were killed on mountain? Guerrillas killed –vs- government troops elsewhere? At best all that means is that there is a question mark over the date of Cromwell’s letter or if he did / did not write the list or revise it - so what? It does not disprove the consensus that civilians were killed. It’s also quite common for a politician (or his minders) to cover ass or afterwards want something seen differently. Lists usually are annexures and easily changed post event. No big deal to have them separate to the main document. O'Siochru quotes 5, is that not enough?

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Of course the crucial caveat here is that these ‘inhabitants’ might well have been armed. Because I have also discovered that Dillingham reports that some of the civilians of Drogheda got involved in the battle. The Moderate Intelligencer (30 August – 6 September) provides the evidence. Dillingham’s correspondent writes that Ormond “furnished it [Drogheda]well with all necessities, every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms, is in posture of war.”

In that same issue of The Moderate Intelligencer Dillingham also provides evidence that proves most of the population were not even in Drogheda at the time when he writes:
“Ormond ‘lies between Tredagh and Trim, intending if he can to be a spectator at the siege of the first, if not of both, which by the advantage of the river, he hopes to do rather than by the valour of his men; he hath cleared Tredagh of all superfluous and suspected persons”.

Why does everybody assume that the local inhabitants stayed in the town? Granted, we do not know a lot about the movements of the inhabitants but there are some facts that are quite clear. Firstly, there was a five-month long siege of the town just eight years earlier that had dire consequences on the food and supply levels of the civilian population. Is it sensible to assume that those same inhabitants would simply stay put when they could easily flee? They had ample time to do so with the Ironsides camped outside the town for a week before hostilities began.
Secondly, we know that Aston was prepared for a long siege and that they had stocked up on supplies that would last for months. (The Kingdom’s Faithfull and Impartial Scout reported on the 5 October 1649 that there were victuals stocked up in the town to last nine months.) Thirdly, it would seem to make sense that with a population of 3,000 people and a garrison of 3,000 soldiers that a reduction in the number of mouths to feed would be an obvious military decision to make.

How can you call that evidence of clearing a town? Just because a few people left, or Ormonde wanted a reduction in numbers is no indication that any town – including Drogheda - was ‘cleared’. In fact, contrary to your assertions, they most like were not cleared. Can you imagine how clearing a town would be achieved – (“Excuse me Sir, but ASAP would you mind leaving your house, home, goods, and the safety of this walled town and get thyself with thy family off into the countryside full of marauding soldiers.”) That would really work! Were the defenders to achieve it at sword-point? Really motivating for the soldiers to see their families kicked out by colleagues! You say that the experiences of the First Siege of Drogheda would have led to an exodus – that is a very unreasonable assumption, when you should know that at the First Siege the defenders withstood repeated attacks – and held out and were rescued. All the more reason for citizens to remain inside the walls. As you state yourself, there was a huge amount of food stored at Drogheda and the cavalry was ranged to prevent people from leaving.

Tom Reilly wrote: »

But that’s not the only evidence we have for civilians being dispatched from the town. We already know that Dean Nicholas Bernard’s wife and children are documented as being ‘sent out of the town’. And just to copper-fasten the suggestion that this action was desirable in order to conduct a long siege, which was exactly the plan, Ormond does exactly the same thing at Wexford. In a letter to the mayor of Wexford on 9 October, 1649, two days before the Parliamentarian army managed to force their way into the town, and still hoping for a long siege there, still outside the walls of Wexford, Ormond explains why:

"Wee are come hither to countenance the maintenance and to relieve the necessities of the towne, and doe find upon examination of the conditions thereof that provision of victuals wilbe the greatest want in all probability to draw any distresse thereon, and withal finde the Country here soe exhausted that it wilbe difficult to supply the Towne with provision for all sortes of people there. And therefore pray and require you after examination of each Inhabitants provision that you send out the unnecessary people, as ould men, women and children with that expedition that whilst wee are here, we may send them whither they propose to go themselves most safely."

Ormond cleared the town of all superfluous and suspected people. This is a seminal piece of evidence not usually quoted in the context of Cromwell at Drogheda. And yet it could easily be interpreted to imply that all ‘superfluous’ people, including men – not inclined to take up arms - and women and children were cleared from the town. Indeed it also implies that some inhabitants may well have taken up arms since every man in that kingdom fit to bear arms was in a posture of war. Unlike The Man in the Moon and Mercurius Elencticus, The Moderate Intelligencer was considered to be the one of the most reliable and respected broadsheets of its day. Dillingham, its author, who was renowned for his excellent contacts with both parliamentary officials and army leaders, seemed to portray an open mind and an impartial perspective on contemporary events to the point where his publication is often called The Times of its day. So if we don’t ignore Dillingham’s army contact’s evidence then we must assume that the ‘superfluous’ people in Drogheda were removed from the town.
So regarding this particular piece of evidence it is absolutely the case that we cannot be sure that Cromwell wrote ‘and many inhabitants’. And what’s more, if inhabitants did die, there is now evidence to suggest that anyone who was inclined to took up arms against parliament.
…

That is not any ‘seminal piece of evidence’ - it's a few people and it is conjecture and extrapolating data to suit your argument, so it is highly specious. Furthermore, it was a military tactic of the besiegers to prevent citizens from leaving, as it caused hassle to the defending commanders, drained resources and more importantly put pressure on food, living conditions/disease and morale. Of course any defending general would want civilians out of the way, just as much as the attackers would prevent them leaving. For example, Limerick fell as a direct result of a few new civic leaders (elected during the siege) persuading a few of Hugh Dubh’s soldiers to seize St John’s Gate and its cannon. They then threatened to turn the guns on the defenders if he did not surrender. Before that happened attempts had been made to expel some of the citizens from the City but Ireton did not allow it, and on the next attempt killed them before the walls

Tom Reilly wrote: »

We also know that within the town of Drogheda there was a civilian conspiracy to betray the place to Cromwell. The scheme of Lady Wilmot (Sir Arthur Aston’s grandmother) and her several espionage associates was exposed when her messenger, a young boy, was caught with letters in his possession that were destined for Parliamentarian hands. One of her co-conspirators was a Lady Blayney whose letter (signed A.B.) to Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes (Colonel John Ffolk became Governor of Drogheda in 1650 according to the Corporation of Drogheda records.) opened with the line

‘Sir, The hearing of your coming this way is a great joy to me, but it has driven all the lords away, and my Ladie Moore.’

This is further evidence that non-military personnel had departed the scene. With the conspiracy exposed, Aston banished the undercover agents to the monastery at nearby Mellifont, where (it would make sense that) the town’s civilians might have been also seeking refuge.

That’s evidence of a few people, not a population. Mellifont? Are you asserting that Cromwell would have obeyed the sanctity’ of a Catholic monastery?

I have no issues with revising the numbers of those killed, these inevitably are exaggerated, like for e.g. the numbers used in the Depositions. We see that on a daily basis in conflicts around the world.
I cannot see what your claim adds to our understanding, far too many assumptions, conjecture and lack of evidence (just because a letter is written does not mean its contents will be obeyed).

Many of your arguments can be stood on their collective heads and used against you. Rather than convincing me, the paucity of real evidence (not your surmise, conjecture or assumptions) actually strengthens my belief that the book has little merit. And as you say,

Tom Reilly wrote: »

. Jeez, this is fricken time consuming…

agreed, it also is very tiresome.

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Simply, Cromwell ordered ‘No Quarter’, no quarter was given, he then totally lost control of his troops and he had set the scene for the civilian atrocities by his own actions..

Not true my friend, to whom I owe an apology. Just not true. Sorry man (or woman). Must have been in a mood yesterday. The Moderator has pointed out that my style was inappropriate. Just being defensive. I'm not proud of what I wrote. And I know I can't take it back.

Apologies again. If you want a soft copy of my book just let me know (PM) and I can e-mail you one free, if the Moderator allows such an activity. I'm also on FB, if that helps.

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not annoyed with you, just repeatedly asking for sources should not have been necessary.
Much of what you have written has little bearing on what you claim. What you call ‘evidence’ is not that, it is conjecture and assumption. The ‘civilian conspiracies’ to betray Drogheda you mention are a red herring.


So what? Pick seven newspapers today and read the same story – how many will be identical? The ‘facts’ will be similar but the detail will be quite at variance. How many Iraqis were killed on mountain? Guerrillas killed –vs- government troops elsewhere? At best all that means is that there is a question mark over the date of Cromwell’s letter or if he did / did not write the list or revise it - so what? It does not disprove the consensus that civilians were killed. It’s also quite common for a politician (or his minders) to cover ass or afterwards want something seen differently. Lists usually are annexures and easily changed post event. No big deal to have them separate to the main document. O'Siochru quotes 5, is that not enough?



How can you call that evidence of clearing a town? Just because a few people left, or Ormonde wanted a reduction in numbers is no indication that any town – including Drogheda - was ‘cleared’. In fact, contrary to your assertions, they most like were not cleared. Can you imagine how clearing a town would be achieved – (“Excuse me Sir, but ASAP would you mind leaving your house, home, goods, and the safety of this walled town and get thyself with thy family off into the countryside full of marauding soldiers.”) That would really work! Were the defenders to achieve it at sword-point? Really motivating for the soldiers to see their families kicked out by colleagues! You say that the experiences of the First Siege of Drogheda would have led to an exodus – that is a very unreasonable assumption, when you should know that at the First Siege the defenders withstood repeated attacks – and held out and were rescued. All the more reason for citizens to remain inside the walls. As you state yourself, there was a huge amount of food stored at Drogheda and the cavalry was ranged to prevent people from leaving.



That is not any ‘seminal piece of evidence’ - it's a few people and it is conjecture and extrapolating data to suit your argument, so it is highly specious. Furthermore, it was a military tactic of the besiegers to prevent citizens from leaving, as it caused hassle to the defending commanders, drained resources and more importantly put pressure on food, living conditions/disease and morale. Of course any defending general would want civilians out of the way, just as much as the attackers would prevent them leaving. For example, Limerick fell as a direct result of a few new civic leaders (elected during the siege) persuading a few of Hugh Dubh’s soldiers to seize St John’s Gate and its cannon. They then threatened to turn the guns on the defenders if he did not surrender. Before that happened attempts had been made to expel some of the citizens from the City but Ireton did not allow it, and on the next attempt killed them before the walls


That’s evidence of a few people, not a population. Mellifont? Are you asserting that Cromwell would have obeyed the sanctity’ of a Catholic monastery?

I have no issues with revising the numbers of those killed, these inevitably are exaggerated, like for e.g. the numbers used in the Depositions. We see that on a daily basis in conflicts around the world.
I cannot see what your claim adds to our understanding, far too many assumptions, conjecture and lack of evidence (just because a letter is written does not mean its contents will be obeyed).

Many of your arguments can be stood on their collective heads and used against you. Rather than convincing me, the paucity of real evidence (not your surmise, conjecture or assumptions) actually strengthens my belief that the book has little merit. And as you say,

agreed, it also is very tiresome.

Oops. We crossed over there. Thanks for taking the time to respond at length. Why don't you simply read the book, dismiss it, and then we'll all be happy.

And I don't mean that in an aggressive or negative way. You have a vested interest. But your arguments are weak IMO. Tiresome is absolutely right. I completely disagree with you in all of your responses. You have to take ALL of the evidence into account. Especially Cromwell's declaration at Youghal.

I'm not copping out. I just feel you should read everything I've written.

pedroeibar1

Lets agree to disagree; no need to apologise, no hard feelings. I'll wait for the reviews and if a professional gives it a rave review I'll buy it.:)

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Lets agree to disagree; no need to apologise, no hard feelings. I'll wait for the reviews and if a professional gives it a rave review I'll buy it.:)

Cool. That's a deal. Appreciate that. If a professional gives it a rave review, I'll be amazed.

ChicagoJoe

Tom Reilly wrote: »

I have also said that I won't get a single cent for my book so you can say what you like about publicity. I don't care about money. (Say what you like about that. You'll be joining a long queue.)

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

Tom Reilly

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

Good holy lantern Jaysus.

Tom Reilly

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Maybe you could recommend a good book on Cromwell as clearly your own conceited history of him isn't up to much ?

What is it about these forums?! Are people always as horrible as this? Seriously? Maybe it's the anonymity.

Fratton Fred

Tom Reilly wrote: »

What is it about these forums?! Are people always as horrible as this? Seriously? Maybe it's the anonymity.

Don't worry about Chicago Joe, the only version of Irish history he is interested in is the official NORAID one. Any other version is just a revisionist's apology for imperialism.

Tom Reilly

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't worry about Chicago Joe, the only version of Irish history he is interested in is the official NORAID one. Any other version is just a revisionist's apology for imperialism.

Thanks...erm...Fratton Fred. Not used to these forum yokes. Hard to get my head around the fact that people just rip into you from the off. I'm probably too soft. As someone who is acutely apolitical, and areligious, (if that's a word) it still amazes me how people's politics and religion can completely influence the way they view history, especially Cromwell in Ireland. Not necessarily Chicago Joe. Just saying.

jonniebgood1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Probably the only way you would have got a publisher to print the book was not to give yourself a profit. Besides loads of people publish books not looking for profit, and articles in magazines etc. Doesn't mean to say they are somehow more correct in their assertions than someone who makes a profit from a widely purchased book.

If you want a proper discussion then you need to make sensible points backed up with material such as sources. The above post does none of this. Any more of this type of post will result in infractions.

Moderator

Ozymandiaz

Tom Reilly, contrary to your own opinion of yourself you are not good, and I hardly think god thinks so either! Neither have you proved your case. You are selective in the use of primary sources and you seem to have an obvious anti-Nationalist, anti-Catholic bias.

Your argument collapses in the face of the phrase 'and many inhabitants'. Parliament controlled the press through the Council of State and published only its own edited and sanctioned version of the news of the day. There were other clandestine news media in circulation but these words came at the end of parliament's own published report of events at Drogheda. Parliament clearly endorsed the notion that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda perished at the hands of Cromwell's New Model Army during the siege of September 1649. This fact was not a slur on Cromwell's memory by Restoration royalists or an Irish Nationalist invention.

PS - Your manner of expression on this forum is wholly inappropriate, being facetious, emotive and confrontational with the intent, no doubt, of raising peoples' hackles and generating some publicity for yourself. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it simply and to the point. Your 'street cred' manner of expression and penchant for playing to the gallery has no relevance here.

Tom Reilly

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Tom Reilly, contrary to your own opinion of yourself you are not good, and I hardly think god thinks so either! Neither have you proved your case. You are selective in the use of primary sources and you seem to have an obvious anti-Nationalist, anti-Catholic bias.

Your argument collapses in the face of the phrase 'and many inhabitants'. Parliament controlled the press through the Council of State and published only its own edited and sanctioned version of the news of the day. There were other clandestine news media in circulation but these words came at the end of parliament's own published report of events at Drogheda. Parliament clearly endorsed the notion that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda perished at the hands of Cromwell's New Model Army during the siege of September 1649. This fact was not a slur on Cromwell's memory by Restoration royalists or an Irish Nationalist invention.

PS - Your manner of expression on this forum is wholly inappropriate, being facetious, emotive and confrontational with the intent, no doubt, of raising peoples' hackles and generating some publicity for yourself. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it simply and to the point. Your 'street cred' manner of expression and penchant for playing to the gallery has no relevance here.

Oh, hi Ozymandiaz. How are you? Nice to meet you. Even if it is on a forum. Me? I'm great thanks. I'm sure you're a lovely person really. Isn't this the kind of response you'd expect from me? I remember my mother telling me something very significant years ago. You might be interested to know it. "People," she said. "Never get involved with people."

You're right of course, my argument collapses in the light of your dismissal as outlined above. But you neglected to mention one thing. That's just your opinion. Others might disagree. Indeed, I do believe I disagree myself. Unfortunately I haven't got the stomach to respond here. I've realised that no matter what I say it won't make a jot of a difference. It was a mistake coing on here. But hey, God knows, I've made plenty of mistakes in the past. As for my 'street cred'. It's called 'personality' where I come from. That's who I am.

Anyway, it was nice to meet you. Maybe if we meet under different circumstances we can have a civilised conversation about it. But I'm not going to rise to you here. Sorry man. Or woman. I quit.

Tom Reilly

Oh, by the way Ozymandiaz, I forgot to say...I appreciate that you think my argument collapses in the circumstances. I've got no problem with your opinion on that. I find a lot of people have the exactly same mind. Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

But I do have a question for you. Since you think my argument collapses on these grounds, do you think that the publishing of three the words 'and many inhabitants' by parliament is irrefutable proof that large numbers of grannies, granddads, uncles, aunties, teenagers, toddlers and babies were killed indiscriminately (or discriminately even) at Drogheda by Cromwell's troops?

Ozymandiaz

Tom Reilly wrote: »

do you think that the publishing of three the words 'and many inhabitants' by parliament is irrefutable proof that large numbers of grannies, granddads, uncles, aunties, teenagers, toddlers and babies were killed indiscriminately (or discriminately even) at Drogheda by Cromwell's troops?

Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.

For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.

So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.

Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.

Tom Reilly

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.

For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.

So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.

Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.

Excellent answer. So...these were armed inhabitants or unarmed inhabitants in your opinion? I'm guessing that you must have an opinion.

Snickers Man

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If the massacre really did occur in Drogheda it functioned much like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bringing about a quicker end to the war in Ireland.

Ah yes. The familiar argument of the mass murderer down through the ages. "We were just killing indiscriminately now to prevent further slaughter later on. If it works, we'll get away with it (sort of)."

This is precisely the argument that the Germans used for their heavy handedness in Belgium 100 years ago this year. "We were trying to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. By being harsh on civilians in response to guerilla (or franc tireur) activitiy, we were actually saving lives in the long run."

It was bollox then, a fact that even the Germans now acknowledge. Witness their current president's recent remarks at the commemoration in Ypres. It was bollox in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and it was bollox in 17th century Ireland.

pedroeibar1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Ah yes. The familiar argument of the mass murderer down through the ages. "We were just killing indiscriminately now to prevent further slaughter later on. If it works, we'll get away with it (sort of)."

I’m not sure that is what is being said. Slaughters happened, usually when a commander lost control of his troops, as in Drogheda. Nobody has suggested that Cromwell deliberately set out to massacre Drogheda ‘to prevent further slaughter later on’. Subsequently there were surrenders ‘on terms’ that were adhered to and when there were no ‘terms’ slaughters happened – e.g. Wexford. Both Kilkenny and Clonmel surrendered on Terms, and yes, those events were influenced by what happened at Drogheda. Firth’s book on the New Model Army is quite an interesting read on discipline.

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is precisely the argument that the Germans used for their heavy handedness in Belgium 100 years ago this year. "We were trying to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. By being harsh on civilians in response to guerilla (or franc tireur) activitiy, we were actually saving lives in the long run."
It was bollox then, a fact that even the Germans now acknowledge. Witness their current president's recent remarks at the commemoration in Ypres. It was bollox in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and it was bollox in 17th century Ireland.

Irrelevant – no point in trying to compare what happened in 17th and 20th century warfare, rules of engagement and custom were entirely different. A little matter of the Geneva Conventions. Before ‘hearts and minds’ it was common to have reprisals. When ‘hearts and minds’ don’t matter, you get what is going on in Palestine today.

Tom Reilly

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

Quite obviously, it is proof that many inhabitants, i.e. many of the people who normally lived in the town of Drogheda , were killed by Cromwell's troops.

For anybody else reading this post it should be pointed out that on Tuesday, 2 October, 1649, nearly three weeks after the storming of Drogheda, parliament voted the full text of all of Cromwell's correspondence to the Speaker of the House to be published in its official news media - "Ordered, That the several Letters from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together with so much of Colonel Venables' Letter as concerns the Successes in Ireland, be forthwith printed and published." [House of Commons Journal, Tuesday, 2 October, 1649.] The following day Henry Scobell, Clerk of Parliament, had the full text printed for sale on the streets of London under the title 'Letters from Ireland'. On page 6 of this eight page publication, having named and listed the numbers of military killed, it clearly stated that 'many inhabitants' were also killed.

So parliament itself claimed and admitted that 'many inhabitants' of Drogheda were killed. Parliament never subsequently attempted to amend that statement in any way, and neither did Cromwell himself. It was never alleged at the time by anybody that the phrase 'and many inhabitants' should not have been in the official record sanctioned by parliament or that it in any way was a mistake or misrepresentation of the facts. Without recourse to any other primary evidence the conclusion is obvious; many of the people of Drogheda died in the storming of the town following the siege.

Also, quite obviously, it cannot be any opinion of mine that 'many inhabitants' were killed by Cromwell's troops. It is an established fact based upon the authority of the records of the Westminster parliament and the newspaper it published under its own imprimatur.

Sorry Ozymandiaz, maybe you're busy and unable to post at the moment, so I just thought I'd make it easier for you. You're barking up the wrong tree with the 'and many inhabitants' angle. The inhabitants mentioned might easily have been armed. It's a question of interpretation. Historians John Morrill, Micheál Ó'Siochrú and Jason McElligott all believe as you do and I have taken all three to task over this in a very lengthy chapter in my latest work.

Just for your information, although you may already know this, 'Severall Proceedings in Parliament' was also an official parliament publication that was scripted by Scobell and the following week on Tuesday 9 October parliament printed the same list of the slain in the inaugural issue but this time the three incriminating words (and many inhabitants) are missing. (Robert Ibbitson, Severall Proceedings in Parliament. . . Number 1, Tuesday 25, September to Tuesday, 9 October, 1649 Thomason / E.575 [14], reel position: Thomason / 88:E.575 [14]).

Just saying.

I would like you to be very clear about why you feel my argument 'collapses' based on the 'and many inhabitants' scenario. Naturally, I disagree vehemently and I have solid grounds on which to do so.

And I say again - I am talking about the unarmed blacksmiths, innkeepers, tailors, carpenters, servants, washerwomen, teenage girls, teenage boys, children, toddlers and babies of Drogheda. Those 'many inhabitants' referred to could have been armed. But you seem to dismiss that. After all, an armed civilian is no longer a civilian.

I would be interested in your (or anybody's) response to this.