Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
19-01-2012, 11:45   #16
owenc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by paky View Post
what were the worst atrocities carried out by the british/english in ireland? i was thinking cromwells campaign must of been the worst since it almost claimed half the population of ireland.
Who cares.
owenc is offline  
Advertisement
19-01-2012, 11:45   #17
owenc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fratton Fred View Post
****ing hell.

This has nothing to do with history, just a chance for a few celtic supporters to engage in a bit of chest beating.
Exactly. Irish people can't say anything nice about the british people. And my thoughts are proven when i look at the after hours forum and find a disgusting thread about the british flag.

Last edited by owenc; 19-01-2012 at 11:47.
owenc is offline  
Thanks from:
19-01-2012, 11:46   #18
dubhthach
Moderator
 
dubhthach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire
Posts: 2,140
Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.
dubhthach is offline  
19-01-2012, 11:55   #19
CDfm
Registered User
 
CDfm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: way out in the wilderness a lone coyote calls
Posts: 17,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fratton Fred View Post
Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?
The simplest questions are often the hardest ones. I think the OP has hit the mark expertly.

We will make a revisionist out of you yet .
CDfm is offline  
19-01-2012, 12:16   #20
CDfm
Registered User
 
CDfm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: way out in the wilderness a lone coyote calls
Posts: 17,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubhthach View Post
Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.
As I see it , there are 2 schools of thought, 1 being the traditional view and a "Blood, Guts & Goriest Moments in Irish History" would make a great thread in its own right.

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

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

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

That would be new ground for the forum.

So 2 threads could fix the problem.
CDfm is offline  
Advertisement
19-01-2012, 12:20   #21
MyKeyG
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United States of Germany
Posts: 2,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fratton Fred View Post
Unfortunately, very very few people do.
Yeah spot the humour genius. Are you going to start grasping at straws to defend your ridiculous comment?

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

Last edited by MyKeyG; 19-01-2012 at 12:24.
MyKeyG is offline  
(2) thanks from:
19-01-2012, 12:57   #22
jonniebgood1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,278
Keep the discussion on topic folks.

If you find a post that you think is unsuitable you report it, not respond to it.
If you have a problem with the thread you can PM a mod to discuss it. If people make sweeping statements such as 'who cares' they may be banned. It is prefereable that this does not happen.
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Thanks from:
19-01-2012, 14:01   #23
getz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: knott end on sea
Posts: 5,234
it would be cromwell without doubt,but why did he do it ?to understand that you have to look what was happening in europe,he was a catholic hater,not only had england come out of a religious civil war where more englishmen died than in the two world wars,there was persecution of non catholics going on in europe,over the 250 years leeding up to his invasion of ireland,the catholic church had murdered in various stages of the inquisions 60 million people[most of them tortured and burned at the stake,[makes hitler look like a baby] a catherine de medici instigated the butchering of 75,000 french protestant huguenots on aug 24 1572,in 1590 henry 1V issued the edict of nantes to protect them,the church recinded the edict with the help of catholic king louis X1V and butchered half a million french huguennots,in 1655 oliver cromwell threatend to invade france for the new massacre upon french protestants of the valley of piedmont by six catholic regiments by the duke of savoy, meanwhile in ireland the massacre of irish protestants on oct 23 1641,the feast of ingnatious loyola,it is estimated that 1,500 irish protestants were butchered in the streets and in their homes ,parliament believed that rome was to blame and was intending to use ireland as a base to invade england,useing catholics and english royaiist forces and the french,,finally cromwell invaded ireland and attacked the jesuit base at drogheda and in his rage exterminated the entire catholic village of 2,000 .things are not quite as simple as people think.but to be sure he was the worst

Last edited by getz; 19-01-2012 at 14:04.
getz is offline  
19-01-2012, 14:04   #24
Bannasidhe
Registered User
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cork
Posts: 10,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubhthach View Post
Perhaps we should rename the thread. Obviously the OP was asking specifically bout British against Irish. However like most things in life one could argue it's a two way street. For example the Scullabogue Barn massacre during 1798 in Wexford where anywhere between 100-200 "Loyalists" were burnt to death. Or the massacre at Wexford Bridge which has been reported as between 100 and 300 deaths.
I agree with duchthach - May I suggest 'Atrocities in Ireland'. If we continue with the current thread title perhaps we should also have a thread entitled 'Irish atrocities in Britain'- of which the Warrington Bombing would be one. In the interests of balance.

@CDfm :
Quote:
The other view would be that what defined Irish was a moving target as exemplified by the Battle of the Boyne with a half Scottish-half French English King having a Battle over his throne with his Dutch son-in-law.(Bannasidhe have I got that right ?).
- Spot on - also worth mentioning was that William of Orange wanted the resources of England (in particular) to help him in his endless crusade against Louis XIV of France. It really had feck all to do with Ireland except for deciding whether a Scots/English king or a Dutch king got to strip its natural resources.

@Fatton Fred :
Quote:
Surely a more legitimate question would be what were the worst atrocities carried out in Ireland?
How does one define worst? The greatest number killed at the time or the horror it caused?

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

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

Quote:
LC1586.17

The governor, and the Earl of Clann-Rickard, and the Earl of Tuadh-Mumha, accompanied by large armies, established a camp in the Tochar, and in Baile-in-Rodba; and they hanged three children in Ross-mor, whom they themselves had in their hands for a long time before that, viz., the son of the Blind Abbot, and the son of Meiler, son of Walter Fada, and the son of John Burk: and that was a pitiful deed—the hanging of the innocent children. And they killed Eoghan, the son of Domhnall-an-chogaidh O'Flaithbhertaigh, per dolum, and killed and hanged several of his people. And the army that committed those deeds brought three thousand cows with them, and entirely plundered Ciarraidhe.
The Gaelic Irish had a great regard for ruthlessness. They admired decisive military action but they also lived in a society that highly valued children. In their minds to hang a child was so horrific as to be unthinkable. In Tudor England, children were often subject to Capital punishment so to Bingham and Co - it was just another weapon of Terror.

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

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

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

Also from Loch Cé involving Richard Bingham that same year:

Quote:
LC1586.18

The sons of James Mac Domhnaill came to Erinn, with fifteen hundred Albanachs; and they destroyed much in Uladh. And they went to Cill-Ronain in the territory of Connacht, and were five nights in it; and the governor was at Bel-an-atha-fada, a numerous host of the chieftains of Connacht, and of Saxons, being with him. And the Albanachs retreated to Cul-mhaine; and some of the Clann-William came to meet them; and they advanced to Droiched-in-chillín. And when the Saxons heard that the Albanachs had gone past them down, they followed them; and they encountered one another at Droiched-in-chilín, and delivered a vigorous battle to each other there; and five or six of the governor's horses were killed; and the Albanachs departed uninjured to Sliabh-damh, and carried a prey with them to Ard-na-riadh. As regards the governor, he was rendered furious and fully angry at the escape of the Albanachs from him, and he permitted all the 'rising out' of the Gaeidhil that he had to depart, and returned southwards towards the Caislén-mór.
And two Saxon companies that came from Mumha overtook him there; and he had then seven companies of the best army in the world; and he followed them nobly, valiantly, vigorously, until he reached Ard-na-riadh. And when the Albanachs saw them approaching they advanced from the town to meet and encounter the Foreigners, and discharged vehement, furious, showers from their firearms against the Foreigners; and such was the misfortune of the Albanachs, that they wounded neither man nor horse with that discharge, and that they commenced a movement of rout and flight towards the Muaidh, and that twenty hundred, or more, were killed and drowned.
James Mac Domhnaill's two sons were killed there, viz., Domhnall Gorm and Alaster; and Gilla-espuig, son of Dubhghall, son of Donnchadh Cam MacAilin, was slain there; and Edmond Kiocarach, son of David Bán Burk, and Cathair, son of Domhnall, son of Donnchadh Ruadh Mac Domhnaill, were slain there, and many more whom we cannot reckon, from their number. And in Ard-na-riadh this slaughter was given, a week before the festival of Michael.
Some estimates put the number dead at 3,000. One of Bingham's captains - Geoffrey Fenton later wrote ' I was never so tired of killing men as I was that day.' He then added in a casual tone that once all the men were dead - they 'dispatched the women and children'.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Bannasidhe; 19-01-2012 at 14:28. Reason: clarify authorship of Loch Cé passages quoted. And fix where spellcheck decided I meant Athenry not Ardnaree- I didn't.
Bannasidhe is offline  
Advertisement
19-01-2012, 14:27   #25
dubhthach
Moderator
 
dubhthach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire
Posts: 2,140
I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)
dubhthach is offline  
(2) thanks from:
19-01-2012, 14:28   #26
dubhthach
Moderator
 
dubhthach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire
Posts: 2,140
Mod

Jugger0, inflammatory comments aren't welcome in this form. Desist or I will hand out infractions/forum ban
dubhthach is offline  
19-01-2012, 14:55   #27
MarchDub
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
First let me say that I agree with some of the reservations expressed here that a thread like this could easily and quickly descend into a bashing opportunity if events are taken out of historic context and not within their own historic or situational relevance.And changing the name of the thread to an inclusive form does little IMO to change that direction.


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


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


If we concentrate purely on atrocities we could go on forever with competing numbers and egregious events and who did worse – and avoid history all together.
MarchDub is offline  
19-01-2012, 15:29   #28
Bannasidhe
Registered User
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cork
Posts: 10,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubhthach View Post
I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)
Our buddy Richard Bingham was involved in that massacre too. I can't get access the relevant entry at the moment - but it is in the State Papers Ireland.

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

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

There is a full transcript of a 'poor Rich Bingham how he has been overlooked' document from around the 1570s published in Memoirs of the Binghams (full text available:
http://www.archive.org/stream/memoir...0mcca_djvu.txt)

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

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

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

According to Bingham's version - If those responsible had been doing their jobs, Bingham would not have had to A) to leave his assigned post in the Channel - so that was Wynter's fault. B) to save the day and defeat the Spanish/Italians - de Grey's fault. C) to check out and oversee repairs to the fortifications - Raleigh's fault. Plus, the implication of his statement is that the massacre would not have happened if de Gray etc had been present to keep order.
Bannasidhe is offline  
19-01-2012, 18:20   #29
paky
Banned
 
paky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Beirut
Posts: 2,104
it disappoints me that the mods changed the name of the thread. its scary to think that people can just airbrush these events from history because they don't suit the current british political agenda. theres a name for people like that and they're called holocaust deniers.

Last edited by paky; 19-01-2012 at 18:37.
paky is offline  
(4) thanks from:
19-01-2012, 18:45   #30
byhookorbycrook
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubhthach View Post
I've changed the name of the thread. Great post by Bannasidhe, just as an aside as I'm going off memory but to add a little folklore (as in memory survived down to today via folklore). During the Desmond Rebellion after Dún an Oir surrended the Papal troops (600 Italian/Spanish) and the Irish were executed. To this day there are two fields nearby which are called:

Gort a Ghearradh (The field of the cutting)
Gort na gCeann (The field of the heads)
The fort itself is sadly neglected, so many buses whizz by on the Slea head drive and don't even know it's there.
byhookorbycrook is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet