Cromwell in Ireland

MarchDub · 17-11-2008 5:16am

ilkhanid wrote: »

Exactly. For a comparison with Cromwell, the best examples would be contemporaries of his. Look at the behaviour of the Spanish in the Netherlands,Tilly at Magdeburg and the persecutions unleashed by the Austrians in the Czech lands after White Mountain. They put him in perspective. And the Royalist English were no innocents either. They perpetrated atrocities during the Civil War too.

I couldn't disagree more. This type of argument - that putting atrocities in "perspective" somehow abrogates the crime - is precisely what gives the so called revisionists a bad name among those not afraid to address full truths. We might as well say that Hitler's holocaust against the Jewish people can be mitigated by putting it in the "perspective" of the Armenian Genocide of WWI. Nonsense. No one would make such an argument.

Cromwell wrecked havoc in Ireland and the land seizures that were given as bounty to his otherwise unpaid army shaped Irish tenant destiny - beggary - for hundreds of years.

Hookey · 17-11-2008 2:07pm

MarchDub wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. This type of argument - that putting atrocities in "perspective" somehow abrogates the crime - is precisely what gives the so called revisionists a bad name among those not afraid to address full truths. We might as well say that Hitler's holocaust against the Jewish people can be mitigated by putting it in the "perspective" of the Armenian Genocide of WWI. Nonsense. No one would make such an argument.

Cromwell wrecked havoc in Ireland and the land seizures that were given as bounty to his otherwise unpaid army shaped Irish tenant destiny - beggary - for hundreds of years.

Except no-one does the comparison between the Nazis and the Armenian genocides for very good reasons; they were nothing like each other! The Nazis industrialised genocide on a previously unseen scale, and that is why they have a unique place, not just in all history, but the history of the time. Its why Hitler is still seen as more "evil" than Stalin, even though the latter probably had more people killed. So you're incorrect; you have to judge history through the lens of the period; the Nazis were considered the pinnacle of brutality at the time, whereas Cromwell was nothing special against the background of the 30 years war, and making moral judgements from the 21st century about the mores of the 17th is simply absurd, unless they stand out from the moral landscape of the time.

Would I want to spend a long car journey with him? No, because by my standards he's a religious fundamentalist and a bigot, but I'm not a 17th century northern European.

getz · 17-11-2008 3:13pm

hooky i i could not agree more its just a pity that a lot of people do not realize what else was going on in the world at that time ie torture and burnings in the word of god .my catholic teachers only told me about cromwell, i wonder why ?

Erin Go Brath · 17-11-2008 3:29pm

getz wrote: »

hooky i i could not agree more its just a pity that a lot of people do not realize what else was going on in the world at that time ie torture and burnings in the word of god .my catholic teachers only told me about cromwell, i wonder why ?

Because Cromwell was 'the major figure' in 17th century Irish History perhaps, just perhaps you can see why he gets a mention in our history books. :rolleyes:

MarchDub · 17-11-2008 3:30pm

Hookey wrote: »

So you're incorrect; you have to judge history through the lens of the period; the Nazis were considered the pinnacle of brutality at the time, whereas Cromwell was nothing special against the background of the 30 years war, and making moral judgements from the 21st century about the mores of the 17th is simply absurd, unless they stand out from the moral landscape of the time.

Maybe we will just have to disagree but -

Reading letters and correspondence from the period of Cromwell yields a horrific picture of what his slaughter was like for average people. It was suffering and loss on a grand scale for them - without the perspective of the 21st century to influence their view.

This business of denying the suffering of the past, which also includes denying the pain of the present by the discredited, anachronistic "they were/are not like us" argument, is simply a refusal to address the issue. As recently as the Vietnam war this was used against Asians as justification by western commentators and writers. And it is nonsense.

The mores of the time of Cromwell also included slavery - I know of no contemporary historian of any respectable status who would argue that slavery can be "explained away" by putting it in "perspective". Certainly no African or African American historian. Maybe the historians of the "winners"? - but that would be predictable. As is the case with Cromwell - history always favours the winners because they write it. Look at the palaver that Churchill wrote about WWII - which for the first 40 years after the war went unanswered.

As for your argument about Stalin - you are incorrect in claiming that your opinion is universally held. It is your opinion and I accept that but there is much conflict out there among scholars - and survivors - about the egregious nature of Stalin and that his atrocities should be placed alongside those of Hitler.

getz · 17-11-2008 3:50pm

check your history slavery was not invented by eurpopeans you and i both know that slavery was alive and well long before the white man came in fact most black slaves was sold by blacks to white privateers-cromwell did not have slaves the landowners and rich of the day[irish and english]kept slaves-even to-day slavery is alive and well in africa and asia

asdasd · 17-11-2008 3:58pm

For a comparison with Cromwell, the best examples would be contemporaries of his. Look at the behaviour of the Spanish in the Netherlands,

So prior to the Spanish war in the Netherlands how much land was in Dutch hands, and how much after ( was it from 80% to 6%) - was the Spanish war a clear war of ethnic and cultural cleansing? Must have been , huh?

ilkhanid · 17-11-2008 5:42pm

The Spanish war in the Netherlands included clear instances of atrocities against civilians on a scale comparable to, or greater than Cromwell at Drogheda as well as religious persecution. As for "ethnic cleansing" we can see examples of this in the same time period during the wars in Poland.
Putting Cromwell in perspective does not exculpate him of his acts. But it shows that he was not some kind of unique monster.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 5:47pm

The Spanish war in the Netherlands included clear instances of atrocities against civilians on a scale comparable to, or greater than Cromwell at Drogheda as well as religious persecution.

The major atrocities of the Cromwellian era came after he had left. His war was the war against the cities and towns, the later war was the war against the countryside, a scorched earth campaign to subdue the population and reduce it's size. Those wars were genocidal in intent, and dispossessive in fact.

We seem to have moved on from the Spanish netherlands to Poland. Do we have to keep hopping through Europe, the world, and all possible time periods to keep the revisionist flame burning?

Nor is this relevant. Cromwell was not as bad in Ireland as the British Empire in Australia, but so what

ilkhanid · 17-11-2008 7:22pm

The "revisionist" bogeyman again. What does the place matter? What matters is the time. In his time period he was not unique or even unusual, whearas there are people claiming that he was, that his actions were remarkable and out-of-the ordinary.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 7:24pm

What does the place matter? What matters is the time. In his time period he was not unique or even unusual, whearas there are people claiming that he was, that his actions were remarkable and out-of-the ordinary.

We we are claiming that claiming that his actions were not out-of-the ordinary, is not an excuse. In fact they were in Europe ( or rather the consequences of the entire war were).

It was, indeed, a dangerous time to be subjects of Empire, but that does not excuse Cromwell.

ilkhanid · 17-11-2008 7:31pm

You seem to be under the impression that putting Cromwell in the context of similiar behaviour excuses him or you think that is what I am claiming. You are mistaken.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:07pm

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Not sure what the IRA have got to do with a thread discussing Cromwell.

I probably should have reprased my post but you are right, the outbreak of plague also played a large part in decimating the population. However, would the plague have been as devestating if there had not also been a famine at the time and would there have even been a famine at that time if Cromwell had never set foot in Ireland?

Anyway, I would probably go along with the comparison of Cromwell to an English version of Hitler. For example,

both men were fanatics that believed what they were doing was just and right,

both were responsible for genocide,

while Hitler did not sell prisoners off as slaves as Cromwell did, he did send people to concentration and labour camps.

Ironically, I read once that Hitler was an admirer of Cromwell. I wonder just how much of an influence Cromwell really had on him.

There is no evidence Cromwell commited any genocide against Irish Catholics, the towns he conquered were English royalist garrison towns, which refused to surrender.

The Irish population was reduced by famine, disease and pestilence, not genocide, this was the norm in other European countries as well at the time in civil wars.

Nor did he seize land from Irish pesants, land taken was that of mostly rebel old Engllish royalists.

Nor did Cromewell banish the Irish from the land as claimed, they remained as farm workers, servents etc, only rebels and royaloists were banished.

Indentured service for political prisoners, orphans and others was the norm at the time in England as well.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:13pm

The Irish population was reduced by famine, disease and pestilence, not genocide, this was the norm in other European countries as well at the time in civil wars.

Did the English population fall as much. The famine was induced by a deliberate scorched Earth policy. It had ideological intent.

Nor did he seize land from Irish pesants, land taken was that of mostly rebel old Engllish royalists.

He stole from all Irish Catholics. Old English royalists were considered Irish at this stage. Land was stolen from Catholics.

Nor did Cromewell banish the Irish from the land as claimed, they remained as farm workers, servents etc, only rebels and royaloists were banished.

He elimated the elite. this is a cultural genocide.

Indentured service for political prisoners, orphans and others was the norm at the time in England as well.

Not at that scale and not an excuse. whataboutary.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:17pm

boneless wrote: »

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

Yes, but it was the English royalist army he massacred there, not native Irish.

The problem is myths were historically invented to support independence and taught as fact.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:19pm

The problem is myths were historically invented to support independence and taught as fact.

You havent proven that any of these are myths.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:22pm

From wikipedia:

By early 1651, it was reported that no English supply convoys were safe if they travelled more than two miles outside a military base. In response, the Parliamentarians destroyed food supplies and forcibly evicted civilians who were thought to be helping the tories. John Hewson systematically destroyed food stocks in counties Wicklow and Kildare, Hardress Waller did likewise in the Burren in County Clare, as did Colonel Cook in County Wexford. The result was famine throughout much of Ireland, aggravated by an outbreak of Bubonic plague.[13] As the guerrilla war ground on, the Parliamentarians, as of April 1651, designated areas such as County Wicklow and much of the south of the country as what would now be called free-fire zones, where anyone found would be, "taken slain and destroyed as enemies and their cattle and good shall be taken or spoiled as the goods of enemies".[14] This tactic had succeeded in the Nine Years' War that had ended in 1603. In addition they began selling prisoners of war as indentured servants to the West Indies (especially Barbados, where their descendants are known as Redlegs). A total of 12,000 Irish people were sold as slaves under the English Commonwealth regime.[15]

This phase of the war was by far the most costly in terms of civilian loss of life. The combination of warfare, famine and plague caused a huge mortality among the Irish population. William Petty estimated (in the Down Survey) that the death toll of the wars in Ireland since 1641 was over 618,000 people, or about 40% of the country’s pre-war population. Of these, he estimated that over 400,000 were Catholics, 167,000 killed directly by war or famine and the remainder by war-related disease.[16]

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:25pm

asdasd wrote: »

Did the English population fall as much. The famine was induced by a deliberate scorched Earth policy. It had ideological intent.

He stole from all Irish Catholics. Old English royalists were considered Irish at this stage. Land was stolen from Catholics.

He elimated the elite. this is a cultural genocide.

Not at that scale and not an excuse. whataboutary.

"Old English" were certainly not considered Irish, the stautes of Kilkenny were strictly enforced.

Irish Catholics were serfs for Norman and Gaelic aristocrats, who sided with the King and RC church they did not own their land.

What scorched Earth policy ? Irish peasants remained farming the land, the mass expulsion to the west is another lie.

As stated it was normal in times of civil war for populations to fall, this happened across Europe.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:30pm

asdasd wrote: »

From wikipedia:

"slavery" or indentued service existed throughout the British isles, it was not unique to the Irish.

As it states those who aided the rebels were evicted, not Irish Catholics on mass as traditionally taught, they remained working the land.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:35pm

asdasd wrote: »

You havent proven that any of these are myths.

There is no evidence Cromwell evicted the Irish Catholic population to the west, nor that those killed in Dogheda and Wexford were native Irish, they were not.

Its a lie taught by nationalists to support independence and the church to blacken Cromwells name.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:35pm

Wow, wikipedia, must be true.

Wikipedia is very well maintained in it's historical sites. Otherwise West Brit apologists could go in, vandalize the place and replace it with spurious revisionist nonsense.

Notice the numbers in my piece [13] to [16]. These are links to footnotes. Without these footnotes they would not be allowed. If you have any actual problem with the content, discuss it here ( with source references) and edit it there and get past the overview.

Irish Catholics were serfs for Norman and Gaelic aristocrats,

Of course, it was a peasant age - but there were yeomanry in Ireland. Both the Norman and Gaelic aristocrats were Irish speaking in the main, so their dispossion was a disposession of a cultural elite.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:36pm

There is no evidence Cromwell evicted the Irish Catholic population to the west, nor that those killed in Dogheda and Wexford were native Irish, they were not.

Its a lie taught by nationalists to support independence and the church to blacken Cromwells name.

What utter ****, what self hating claptrap. the cromwellian wars were clearly genocidal. 40% of the population. Vile.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:41pm

asdasd wrote: »

What utter ****, what self hating claptrap. the cromwellian wars were clearly genocidal. 40% of the population. Vile.

Instead of posting obscenities, I challenge you to prove your claim.

Name the place Cromwell massacred Irish Civilans ?

Show a credible source to show Cromwell moved the native Irish population west ?

You cant because its a myth.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:47pm

asdasd wrote: »

Wikipedia is very well maintained in it's historical sites. Otherwise West Brit apologists could go in, vandalize the place and replace it with spurious revisionist nonsense.

Notice the numbers in my piece [13] to [16]. These are links to footnotes. Without these footnotes they would not be allowed. If you have any actual problem with the content, discuss it here ( with source references) and edit it there and get past the overview.

Of course, it was a peasant age - but there were yeomanry in Ireland. Both the Norman and Gaelic aristocrats were Irish speaking in the main, so their dispossion was a disposession of a cultural elite.

Yes and Cromwells army were fighting to end feudalism, monarchy and church power. They were the good guys.

Irish catholics did not own their land as you previously claimed, they were serfs.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:48pm

Name the place Cromwell massacred Irish Civilans ?

Show a credible source to show Cromwell moved the native Irish population west ?

Strawmen. I claimed none of this. I claim that:

the cromwellian wars killed 40% of the population.
The gaelic speaking aristocracy was dismantled.
|Catholic ownership of the land declined to 8%.
irish people were deprived of liberties, representation, freedom of movement and more.

I consider the "who was killed at Drogheda" debate orthogonal to these realities.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:50pm

end feudalism, monarchy and church power. They were the good guys.

End feudalism, my ass. He subjected the Irish populatin to greater servitude from an aristocracy which was racist, and despised them as an ethnic group and a culture.

End feudalism. jesus wept.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 8:51pm

end feudalism, monarchy and church power. They were the good guys.

double post.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:55pm

asdasd wrote: »

Strawmen. I claimed none of this. I claim that:

the cromwellian wars killed 40% of the population.
The gaelic speaking aristocracy was dismantled.
|Catholic ownership of the land declined to 8%.
irish people were deprived of liberties, representation, freedom of movement and more.

I consider the "who was killed at Drogheda" debate orthogonal to these realities.

Native Irish lost religious liberties, yes, but then Rome did help fund the rebel and royalist cause. But its not like under the statues of Kilkenny they had many in the first place, the Gaelic aristocracy were forbidden form speaking Irish or assimilating, the myth they were really Irish was put out by the church.

The 40% figure is open to debate and exagerated, but as stated it was the norm in civil wars in Europe for populations to dramatically decline.

Catholic land ownership fell because the Norman and Gaelic aristocracy who owned it had theirs seized and its distributed to thousands of ordinary men who were largely Cromewellian soldiers. Repeat it was not taken from native Irish.

cherrypicker555 · 17-11-2008 8:58pm

asdasd wrote: »

End feudalism, my ass. He subjected the Irish populatin to greater servitude from an aristocracy which was racist, and despised them as an ethnic group and a culture.

End feudalism. jesus wept.

So your denying Cromwell took land off aristocrats and gave it to ordinary men and broke the power of absolute monarchy, aristocracy and church :rolleyes:

The Irish were simply on the losing side, if they had supported the progressive side how history would have been different.

asdasd · 17-11-2008 9:03pm

So your denying Cromwell took land off aristocrats and gave it to ordinary men and broke the power of absolute monarchy, aristocracy and church

Ending feudalism would actually end feudalism. That happened in the late 19th century when peasants bought their landsm under the land purchase system. Replacing one aristocrat with another is not the same as ending the system. The hiberno-normans had replaced a previous gaelic aristocracy but they didnt end feudalism.

The whig view of history is total nonsense, CP. it is a myth, more myth than Irish nationalism.

Cromwell in Ireland

Comments