Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

Red Nissan

I read English History and I can't understand it. I liken Cromwell to Churchill, a villain and thug with ambitions that could be used for any purpose and hard to get rid of later when done and exposed for the criminals they really were.

IMO. Of course.

Snickers Man

OK. Talking at cross purposes here I think.

My point was to criticise the justification of massacre as a potential means to reduce bloodshed in the long run. I pointed out that this argument has been made before and since Cromwell's time and that it is ALWAYS bunk.

One poster suggested that such a calculation had not entered Cromwell's mind. I produced a famous quote from the man himself which rather suggested that it had, at least retrospectively.

And then off we go on a meander that Cromwell really had it in for his English enemies far more than the Irish. So he was all right then?

All wars throw up strange bedfellows. Cromwell had both English enemies and Irish allies. Is this a revelation to anybody here?

Is it a mitigation of Cromwell's ruthlessness that many of the people massacred at Drogheda were English? What does that prove? That he was an early version of an "equal opportunities" slaughterer?

Man was a ****.

****ed up his own country. And ours. Even the English dug him up some years after his death and hung his skeleton in public.

You gotta love the English sometimes. :-)

Red Nissan

Snickers Man wrote: »

You gotta love the English sometimes. :-)

Here like, this is Boards.ie, might be going a bit far there like. :pac:

Snickers Man

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is meaningless in support of your argument because it is a post facto statement. It does not prove ‘mens rea’ when one refers to all the evidence, drawing whatever inferences from it as appear proper in the circumstances. To uphold your argument you would have to show if, before the event took place, Cromwell intended the slaughter of civilians. None of his actions at this or other events show that this was one of his stock tactics.

Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population? No.

Still it is clear that Mr Cromwell saw the massacre of those he did massacre as justifiable on the grounds that it would reduce bloodshed in the long run. The evidence for that is of oral equine calibre.

What are you saying? "Most of the people he killed were English so that's all right then?"

He behaved barbarically, ruined this country and FAILED in his overall mission because the people who benefited in the long run were the very English he most despised, the Anglo Catholics. These formed the Ascendancy who ruled Britain and Ireland exclusively for the next century or so, helpfully keeping out of parliament not only the Roman Catholics for whom the compulsory Oath of Supremacy was impossible because its placing of the Monarch as head of the church undermined the Pope, but his own Non Conformist and Presbyterian brethern who refused to believe that the church needed an earthly head in the first place.

A massacrist and a failure. Shame there wasn't a hell for him to go to.

pedroeibar1

cruasder777 wrote: »

That's the whole point numerous Irish towns have "Irish town" districts outside the centre/city walls, not in the centre.

The ‘census’ of 1659 recorded a population of 846 at Bandon Bridge, 542 English and 304 Irish. The Irish were presumably Catholics, a proof that Boyle’s ban on ‘popish recusants’ was less effective than had been claimed. These people probably occupied back houses and cabins in various messuages or tenements of the walled town, for head tenants were rarely mentioned in early rent roles relating to this area. There were also 113 residents (40 English and 73 Irish) outside the walls in Irishtown and 118 (47 English and 71 Irish) in East Gully. The recorded total was therefore 1077 with 629 English and 448 Irish. Apply a multiplier of three and the population of Bandon and Irishtown was 3231

From here and it should be noted that Bandon was a special case as it was a 'new' town and had a ban on Catholics written into its charter by Boyle.
and

...............Next day they marched on Kilkenny and there was skirmishing by both sides to improve their positions. While the English forces were withdrawing under pressure on one side, their other party took that part of the city known as Irishtown....

(from WHITELOCK, Memorials of the English Affairs printed in 1682. Page 450 )

The real attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to keep the Irish out of towns surely came with the Penal Laws?

pedroeibar1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population? No.

Still it is clear that Mr Cromwell saw the massacre of those he did massacre as justifiable on the grounds that it would reduce bloodshed in the long run. The evidence for that is of oral equine calibre.

What are you saying? "Most of the people he killed were English so that's all right then?"

He behaved barbarically, ruined this country and FAILED in his overall mission because the people who benefited in the long run were the very English he most despised, the Anglo Catholics. These formed the Ascendancy who ruled Britain and Ireland exclusively for the next century or so, helpfully keeping out of parliament not only the Roman Catholics for whom the compulsory Oath of Supremacy was impossible because its placing of the Monarch as head of the church undermined the Pope, but his own Non Conformist and Presbyterian brethern who refused to believe that the church needed an earthly head in the first place.

A massacrist and a failure. Shame there wasn't a hell for him to go to.

If you read my earlier posts Here and Here and Here you will see that we are more or less in agreement. However, I do not accept the bit in bold above. Ormonde for e.g. was not a Catholic.

The treatment of Catholics in Ireland and in England by Cromwell was totally different. He was a ruthlessly efficient commander and ruled with an iron fist e.g. at Gowran as quoted in Whitelocke “the common soldiers (that they might have quarter for themselves) delivered up their officers, viz. Col. Hamson, Major Townly, two Captains, one quartermaster, one lieutenant and a priest.” The officers were shot and the priest hanged. Cromwell also was very aware of what a winter in Ireland meant – it cost him his son-in-law - and it is clear that this influenced his tactics.

Fratton Fred

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The real attempt (albeit unsuccessful) to keep the Irish out of towns surely came with the Penal Laws?

Is that because all Irish are Catholics and all Catholics are Irish?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that because all Irish are Catholics and all Catholics are Irish?

If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.

pedroeibar1

IMO the Mod’s link is not relevant as we are discussing an earlier period in history.

The simple answer to FF’s question is ‘not really’ but it is far more complicated than that. Under English rule up to James I religion invariably took second place to politics* and it could be argued that timeframe could be extended considerably.

After 1641 the key issue was subjugation of the ‘rebellious Irish’ many of whose leaders coincidentally happened to be Roman Catholic. The main purpose of the Cromwellian Settlement and later Penal Laws was to break the power of the Royalist landlords rather than to persecute Catholics in general. Cromwell’s big issue with the English Catholics was fear of ‘Popish’ influence on his Protectorate/leadership ; he was prepared to let English Catholics practice in private and even sent an envoy to Rome to negotiate this on the basis that the Pope would keep his nose out of English/Irish affairs. Rome was up to its neck in Irish affairs and played important military and diplomatic roles, with Rinuccini a key player.

*There was an Act of Uniformity in 1560 compelling attendance at the Established Church, but that was not effectively enforced and generally ignored, unless it was politically motivated to get at a Catholic.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.

Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.

I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.

Tom Reilly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Where did I ever accuse Cromwell of deliberately slaughtering civilians? I know, although reading between the lines it seems to be the whole basis of Mr Reilly's campaign that people assume the contrary, that most of the people slaughtered at Drogheda were members of the garrison and not the population at large. I am not so naive, and I'm sure neither are you, as to suggest there was no "collateral damage" inflicted on the people of Drogheda. But a deliberate massacre of the entire population?

Horray! Well, we finally got there. Collateral damage. No massacre of the entire population. Why is it so hard to agree with me? Naïve? What on earth is that about?!

Collateral damage. That's exactly where I am. Civilians clearly died at Drogheda. Some are even named (Geraldine Tallon, Ed. The Court of Claims, Submissions and Evidence, 1663, 2006) - who of course could have been armed. But I believe any unarmed inhabitants that died died as a result of collateral damage.

So it wasn't the entire population then? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're down to numbers. How many? What does collateral damage mean?

There are two main scenarios as far as I can see here.

1. Somebody peeps around a corner and gets hit by a bullet. A woman, a child, a man...
Numbers here would be small.

2. The out-of-control attacking soldiers just killed any living soul that got in their way and some happened to be civilians (including the old, the infirm, boys, girls, children and babies?) Morrill suggests 700-800 dead civilians. I disagree. Vehemently.

How many? This is the bone of contention now.

Personally, I don't believe there was a policy to kill the innocent and I think a handful of people might have died by accident. I think the evidence from 1649 in this regard is overwhelming. No question.

Was there a deliberate massacre of ANY unarmed civilians? (Numbers to be confirmed.)

That is THE question. Deliberate or accidental deaths. Now, what about the numbers.

How many dead unarmed, innocent, ordinary, going-about-their-daily-business, labourers, tailors, shopkeepers, servants, goat herders, tinkers, tailors, candlestickmakers, shoppers, commuters, pedestrians, onlookers, what ever your having yourselfs are we talking about here?

How many? How many?

Ozymandiaz - where are you when I need you???

Tom Reilly

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

or that I agree with Tom Reilly

Perish the thought.

Snickers Man

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

However, I do not accept the bit in bold above. Ormonde for e.g. was not a Catholic.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.

When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church, or the Church of England (and its offshoot the Church of Ireland). This is a usage still used in England to differentiate Anglo Catholics (Anglicans) from Roman Catholics (or those loyal to the Pope)

This was down to the peculiar nature of Protestantism in England and how it developed after Henry VIII's break with Rome.

Henry didn't change any part of the doctrine of the Church of England to differentiate it from Rome. All he did was declare a sort of UDI from Rome and the Vatican. Strictly, Henry wasn't a Protestant at all; he was a Pope. Albeit one whose influence was restricted to his own jurisdiction. There were a few doctrinal changes in the years following his death: allowing the use of the vernacular in services and rejecting the concept of transubstantiation, for example.

But crucially, the Church of England kept its hierarchy, its structure of bishops and Archbishops with the ruling Monarch at its head. This entire concept was distrusted, to the point of hatred, by the Puritans and Presbyterians, true protestants in the sense that they rejected the need for a church hierarchy on earth preferring instead to trust in their own personal interpretation of the Bible as being the only route needed for the faithful to find God.

When the Puritans used the pejorative term "Papist" they frequently meant High Anglicans or those particularly loyal to the Church hierarchy. This was one of the points distinguishing Tories (High Church Anglicans) from Whigs (other "Bible" protestant congregations) in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The point I was making about Cromwell is that ultimately, by which I mean only about 30 years after his death, the main beneficiary in Ireland of his conquest and the later Williamite one was the Anglican Ascendancy. His most immediate enemies. To sit in Parliament one had to take the Oath of Supremacy, which not only kept out Roman Catholics (the majority of the population) it also kept out the true Protestants, the Dissenters or Presbyterians such as those who had largely colonised the North of Ireland.

It was little wonder that the United Irishmen found such a ready audience among the presbyterians of Ulster in the 1790s.

pedroeibar1

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.

When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church,

Ok, gotcha. Agreed (and I should have been more careful in jumping to an interpretation.):)

jonniebgood1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you say so Fred. Apologies for my link but it is a decent summary.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

IMO the Mod’s link is not relevant as we are discussing an earlier period in history.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.

I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.

Just to clarify My tongue was firmly in my cheek. I didn't either think that Fred really believed literally what he stated! :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point here. Although I suspect you may have misinterpreted mine and that it may be down to my nomenclature.

When I said Anglo Catholics I meant the Anglican Church, or the Church of England (and its offshoot the Church of Ireland). This is a usage still used in England to differentiate Anglo Catholics (Anglicans) from Roman Catholics (or those loyal to the Pope)

The CofE today is loosely split in to low and high church, with the high church being considered Anglo Catholic. It is more traditional, uses incense and has a more traditional view on women being ordained etc.

The low churches would vary from a straight forward type church, similar to the CofI through to ones where the vicars wear polo shirts and chinos and the church organ is made by Yamaha and is accompanied by a guitar and saxophone.

They would all have the same reporting structure though, which is where the fun and games sets in.

pedroeibar1

From the diary of Samuel Pepys
Entry :4th Oct 1660
I and Lieut Lambert to Westminster Abbey, ........Here I saw the Bishops of Winchester, Bangor, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Salisbury, all in their habits, in King Henry Seventh’s chapel. But, Lord at their going out, how people did most of them look upon them as strange creatures, and few with any kind of love or respect.

All High Church men, so the flock had yet to grow appreciative or even leave the 'old' aside.

Snickers Man

Tom Reilly wrote: »

Horray! Well, we finally got there. Collateral damage. No massacre of the entire population. ......

Collateral damage. That's exactly where I am. Civilians clearly died at Drogheda. ........ But I believe any unarmed inhabitants that died died as a result of collateral damage.

So it wasn't the entire population then? Now we're getting somewhere. Now we're down to numbers. How many? What does collateral damage mean?
.......
2. The out-of-control attacking soldiers just killed any living soul that got in their way and some happened to be civilians (including the old, the infirm, boys, girls, children and babies?) Morrill suggests 700-800 dead civilians. I disagree. Vehemently.
.......

Personally, I don't believe there was a policy to kill the innocent and I think a handful of people might have died by accident.

Was there a deliberate massacre of ANY unarmed civilians? (Numbers to be confirmed.)

That is THE question. ......
How many? How many?

That's your point??? Cromwell gave no written orders to massacre civilians or if he did none survive?

Therefore there was no deliberate killing of civilians and the numbers who did die have been greatly exaggerated. Therefore Cromwell's name has been blackened and it's about time the record was set straight?

That's what you've written two books to try and achieve????

Your implication is that it was OK to massacre prisoners, which there is not the slightest doubt Cromwell did do at Drogheda.

Now you might say that he was justified in doing this by the generally accepted rules pertaining at the time. Having summoned the garrison to surrender and having been told to get lost, he was not obliged to spare them once he was victorious.

This is partly true but as has always been the case in military history, it's a grey area. Even in medieval times it was considered sinful to indulge in slaughter of surrendered troops. King Henry V massacred a lot of prisoners at Agincourt. All contemporary accounts mention it.

But the great hagiographer of the Tudor dynsasty, William Shakespeare, left it out of his play on the subject. Why? If it was justified. Surely a "righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches" was worthy of a mention in the biodrama of Tudor England's exemplary hero?

Maybe it was just bad PR.

Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers, many of whom had laid down their arms on the promise that their lives would be spared. There is no doubt that he did this (he admits to it in writing) nor that he justified it, at least partly, on the grounds that it would save lives in the future.

Even if there were no civilian casualties in Drogheda, and even you concede that there were, he deserves to be reviled for what he did there. And has also been pointed out by Arsemageddon, Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is not based solely on what happened at Drogheda (or indeed Wexford), it's based on the bloody awful mess he and his subordinates made of the place, the fallout from which we are still living with to this day.

And as the same poster said:

Arsemageddon wrote:

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. ....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.

Quite.

cruasder777

" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"

.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.

Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.

Snickers Man

cruasder777 wrote: »

" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"

.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.

Yes. But many at Drogheda were slaughtered AFTER they had been led to believe their lives were spared. Even Tom Reilly admits that Cromwell was "treacherous" in his dealings with the Drogheda prisoners

cruasder777 wrote: »

Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.

Mercy? They were as good as slaves. There was a program about their descendents, the Red Legs of Barbados, on TG4 a couple of nights ago. They are still the bottom of the social pile in Barbados.

Tom Reilly

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's your point??? Cromwell gave no written orders to massacre civilians or if he did none survive?

Nope. Do you seriously think that anyone with half a brain would consider that a commander would issue written orders to kill unarmed civilians?

Snickers Man wrote: »

Therefore there was no deliberate killing of civilians and the numbers who did die have been greatly exaggerated. Therefore Cromwell's name has been blackened and it's about time the record was set straight?

Yep.

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's what you've written two books to try and achieve????

Yep.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Your implication is that it was OK to massacre prisoners, which there is not the slightest doubt Cromwell did do at Drogheda.

You're way off beam there. I have no idea where you got that impression. In actual fact, personally, I am convinced that Cromwell breached military convention at Drogheda. But I'm not an expert in the rules of seventeenth century warfare. But I couldn't really give a monkey's about that. It's an irrelevance in my continued defence of Cromwell and the accusation that he murdered the ordinary people of Drogheda and Wexford.

My issue is with a deliberate large scale civilian massacre - widows, pensioners, teenagers, children etc. And if you're up to date with the latest research on the subject, in particular Mr Ó'Siochrú's tome, God's Executioner, the foremost Irish expert in the period, you will be aware that he promotes the notion of a large scale civilian massacre. But he is coy about a total number. I'm not being facetious by trying to determine an exact figure. That's just stupid. What I'm saying is that the civilian inhabitants were left unmolested at Drogheda and there was no massacre of innocents on any scale. Some locals may have gotten caught in the crossfire. But here in 2014 Cromwell is still being accused of genocide at Drogheda and Wexford. Ask any Irish person and they'll tell you that this is the case. And worse of all - IT'S STILL BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS TODAY THAT CROMWELL MASSACRED THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF DROGHEDA. The nonsense that Ó'Siochrú promotes does not help.

Tom Reilly

Damn. That didn't work. How do you find out how to use this forum? Putting quotes in nice neat boxes, using italics...

Somebody?

ChicagoJoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn't work on t'internet.

I point was, the penal laws were anti Catholic/dissenter and their effect on the Irish was coincidental.

The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

" Cromwell was on very shaky ground legally and morally for ordering his troops to systematically murder the captured soldiers"

.....that was the norm of the time, if troops never took the offer of surrender they were slaughtered.

Cromwell took mercy on some who were sent to the new world as indentured servants.

It was the was the norm of the time of the ideology known as Manifest Destiny which was the belief in the United States that white settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Naturally the US armed forces had to clear the way by slaughtering the native Americans but mercy was given to those who took the offer of surrender by ethnically cleansing them off to reservations where the white man didn't want the land. My point is, to reasonable opinion of today Manifest Destiny was no more moral than what happened in Ireland with Cromwell's campaign.

Fratton Fred

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.

Oh shut up.

pedroeibar1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The British could pass laws as they seen fit only to apply Ireland such as Cattle Acts that prevented the export of Irish beef to the continent because it would pose competition to the English beef exports; Wool Acts that essentially closed down the Irish wool trade for the same reason, an armed police force etc. Since Ireland was around 85% Catholic, only a unionist could try and pretend the Penal Laws weren't knowingly passed with Ireland also in mind. The fact that although Catholicism dwindled to tiny numbers in Britain but most of the Penal laws remained on regardless says it all about their real intent on effects on the population of Ireland. However the legacy of the Penal Laws still exist to this day in Britain where the head of state still cannot be a Catholic or even married to one and seats are reserved in it’s parliament (Lords) for the church of England with no objection from our unionist friends to this continuing blatant sectarianism of course.

Rambling post and the bitterness seeps through. What has 'an armed police force' or the Monarchy got to do with the topic under discussion? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you might consider the fact that in the late 1600's less than a quarter of the land remained in Irish Catholic hands. It follows that the worst affected by the Navigation and Wool Acts actually were the new Cromwellian settlers.............. Have you looked at information on smuggling? Or compared the increase in tonnage landed at French ports? (Nantes, for example).

ChicagoJoe

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Rambling post and the bitterness seeps through. What has 'an armed police force' or the Monarchy got to do with the topic under discussion? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you might consider the fact that in the late 1600's less than a quarter of the land remained in Irish Catholic hands. It follows that the worst affected by the Navigation and Wool Acts actually were the new Cromwellian settlers.............. Have you looked at information on smuggling? Or compared the increase in tonnage landed at French ports? (Nantes, for example).

Nothing rambling whatsoever, just pointing out the obvious to unionists that the British could pass laws as they seen fit to apply Ireland regarding trade, police etc and if needed could have exempted Ireland from the Penal laws. The Penal laws effect on the Irish was very far from been " coincidental ".

ChicagoJoe

Tom Reilly wrote: »

You're way off beam there. I have no idea where you got that impression. In actual fact, personally, I am convinced that Cromwell breached military convention at Drogheda. But I'm not an expert in the rules of seventeenth century warfare. But I couldn't really give a monkey's about that. It's an irrelevance in my continued defence of Cromwell and the accusation that he murdered the ordinary people of Drogheda and Wexford.

My issue is with a deliberate large scale civilian massacre - widows, pensioners, teenagers, children etc. And if you're up to date with the latest research on the subject, in particular Mr Ó'Siochrú's tome, God's Executioner, the foremost Irish expert in the period, you will be aware that he promotes the notion of a large scale civilian massacre. But he is coy about a total number. I'm not being facetious by trying to determine an exact figure. That's just stupid. What I'm saying is that the civilian inhabitants were left unmolested at Drogheda and there was no massacre of innocents on any scale. Some locals may have gotten caught in the crossfire. But here in 2014 Cromwell is still being accused of genocide at Drogheda and Wexford. Ask any Irish person and they'll tell you that this is the case. And worse of all - IT'S STILL BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS TODAY THAT CROMWELL MASSACRED THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF DROGHEDA. The nonsense that Ó'Siochrú promotes does not help.

According to the English Parliament's own survey after the war, about 47.7% of the Irish population at the beginning of the war was gone. Most of those were killed during the war or executed or sent to English plantations in the West Indies as slaves immediately after. About 2.7% were Catholics who had fled to the Continent (mostly to France and Spain). Cromwell paid his debts, paid his army, and bolstered his power in England with gifts of land in conquered Ireland. Out of a total of 20 million acres in the survey, 11 million were confiscated. If you seriously expect people to swallow your line that 'honest Ollie' behaved like an impeccable gentleman at Drogheda and Wexford but allowed his army go on a genocidal rampage around the rest of the country, what next, the earth is flat.

Tom Reilly

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

According to the English Parliament's own survey after the war, about 47.7% of the Irish population at the beginning of the war was gone. Most of those were killed during the war or executed or sent to English plantations in the West Indies as slaves immediately after. About 2.7% were Catholics who had fled to the Continent (mostly to France and Spain). Cromwell paid his debts, paid his army, and bolstered his power in England with gifts of land in conquered Ireland. Out of a total of 20 million acres in the survey, 11 million were confiscated. If you seriously expect people to swallow your line that 'honest Ollie' behaved like an impeccable gentleman at Drogheda and Wexford but allowed his army go on a genocidal rampage around the rest of the country, what next, the earth is flat.

To whom it may concern.

At the risk of invoking the ire of the Moderator, following a despicable Private Message earlier today from this individual I have chosen not to engage with him.

ChicagoJoe

One of the aspects that should be considered in the context and atmosphere that Cromwell's campaign of genocide took place in and the gross lies and propaganda that fueled the mindset. It's an academic analysis by linguists and historians from Aberdeen University and Trinity Dublin, I rest my case -

"A two-day academic conference will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. "One of the iconic narratives that comes up in hearsay evidence is reports of atrocities against pregnant women who were said to have been ripped open, had their babies pulled out and beaten against rocks," said Dr Mark Sweetnam, who has been working on the texts.......These 'atrocities' were used by Cromwell to show how cruel, barbarous and alien the Irish were but it's based on highly unreliable evidence. Some of the atrocities, however, such as the drowning of as many as 100 Protestants at Portadown, were corroborated by eyewitness accounts. That barbarity is still depicted on Orange Order banners and loyalist murals in Northern Ireland."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda