Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda
Options
Comments
-
-
In Europe, Holocaust deniers are tried, and if convicted, imprisoned, c.f. the experience of the infamous David Irvine, and numerous others. Fortunately for some, here in Ireland we are now free to deny and invert our own history with complete impunity.
While many points have been made previously, I would like to add what I think is a new one - that Cromwell was a "war criminal" even by the sad standards of his day. Namely, he slaughtered the inhabitants of Wexford - ALL of them, by his own admission - under pretext of negotiations to surrender the town. That is, he engaged in perfidy and treachery. And he then proceeded to slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike.0 -
The Chieftain wrote: »In Europe, Holocaust deniers are tried, and if convicted, imprisoned, c.f. the experience of the infamous David Irvine, and numerous others. Fortunately for some, here in Ireland we are now free to deny and invert our own history with complete impunity.
While many points have been made previously, I would like to add what I think is a new one - that Cromwell was a "war criminal" even by the sad standards of his day. Namely, he slaughtered the inhabitants of Wexford - ALL of them, by his own admission - under pretext of negotiations to surrender the town. That is, he engaged in perfidy and treachery. And he then proceeded to slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike.
So, what are you trying to say, that anyone who disagrees with your view that every man, woman and child in Drogheda were murdered should be imprisoned for holocaust denial?
We're gonna need a bigger prison......0 -
Cromwell was not a war criminal. He did not ‘slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike’, at Wexford as you allege. That’s just a myth. The only contemporary reference (1649) to civilian deaths at Wexford during Cromwell’s assault on the town concerns an accident when some women (number unspecified) drowned in boats in the harbour. Please get your facts right before posting on a forum such as this. Some people are of the opinion that there’s no point in letting facts get in the way of a good story. Yours is a good story. But I’m using facts. You, on the other hand are using myths. Myths that have been expertly hewn from the rocks of propaganda.
Your holocaust comment is repulsive beyond belief.
Cromwell was framed. Get over it.0 -
Tom Reilly wrote: »Cromwell was not a war criminal. He did not ‘slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike’, at Wexford as you allege. That’s just a myth. The only contemporary reference (1649) to civilian deaths at Wexford during Cromwell’s assault on the town concerns an accident when some women (number unspecified) drowned in boats in the harbour. Please get your facts right before posting on a forum such as this. Some people are of the opinion that there’s no point in letting facts get in the way of a good story. Yours is a good story. But I’m using facts. You, on the other hand are using myths. Myths that have been expertly hewn from the rocks of propaganda.
Except that facts are not in agreement with you. I don't need your misrepresentations when I can read Cromwell's own account, written at the very site of the atrocities, in Wexford. He wrote - in his own hand - that his soldiers:
"put all to the sword that came in their way."
What part of "all" do you not understand?
He also wrote:
"of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service."
So, only one in 20 left (5%), many dead, in Cromwell's own words. But then he was an expert propagandist, if I understand you correctly.Tom Reilly wrote: »Your holocaust comment is repulsive beyond belief.
Cromwell was framed. Get over it.
My holocaust comment is a simple statement of fact. But you seem to have both an aversion to, and unfamiliarity with facts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nice one. Even though you've misinterpreted Cromwell's statement, you've still managed to contradict yourself.0
-
Oh. I’m sorry. I was actually mistaken. You have access to Cromwell’s letter?! So sorry. Had I known this I wouldn’t have been so terse. You’ve obviously done your research. A letter that Cromwell himself actually wrote! Wow. I do apologise. But, if you will indulge me for a moment, I would be very grateful.
A play. By me.
Act One, Scene One. A courtroom somewhere.
Characters:
Oliver Cromwell (The Accused)
The Judge
You (The Chieftain – Prosecution Lawyer.):
The legal arena is packed to capacity. Most of the spectators have come to see this larger than life villain in the dock. Others are curious because he’s been dead for 358 years. Oliver Cromwell stands accused of war crimes at Wexford. Death hadn’t changed him much. It is the verdict of history that he slaughtered numerous unarmed men, women and children of Wexford, some say even the entire population.
Judge (to you) “What is your case against this man?’
You: (cut and pasted from your own words) “I can read Cromwell's own account, written at the very site of the atrocities, in Wexford.
He wrote - in his own hand - that his soldiers: "put all to the sword that came in their way."
Judge: ‘Erm, okay. So where does that say that he “then proceeded to slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike” (your words) exactly?’
You: ’What part of ‘all’ do you not understand?’
Judge: ‘Hmm.’
You: ‘Cromwell also wrote, "of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service."
Judge: : ‘Erm, okay. So where does that say that he “then proceeded to slaughter - murder - everyone, men, women and children alike” (your words) exactly?’
You: ‘Well, it doesn’t exactly say that, but c’mon Judge, this is Cromwell we’re talking about!’.
Judge: ‘Mister Cromwell. It seems that you’re some sort of maniacal, blood thirsty monster. What do you have to say for yourself? Did you write these things?’
Cromwell: ‘Yes, your honour. And all of my battle reports are just that. Battle reports. When I said that we ‘put all to the sword that came in their way” I was talking about armed defenders, or soldiers if you prefer. I say nothing of men being unarmed. Nor do I mention women and children. As you can clearly see.
Judge: And what exactly did you mean when you said “of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service”?
Cromwell: ‘Many of the townsmen took up arms against me your honour. They joined the army of Lords Ormonde and Castlehaven in the defence of Wexford. This was a war. And it is these armed men that I refer to. Indeed, if you look closer, I said that most of them ‘are run away’. And I don’t believe that I said I killed any UNARMED men, or certainly not women and children for that matter.’
Judge: ‘So what exactly was your policy regarding unarmed men, women and children in Ireland Mr Cromwell?’
Cromwell: ‘Well, it’s like this your honour. As soon as I arrived in Ireland I issued orders to all of my troops not to touch the hair on the heads of any ‘persons whatsoever, unless they be in arms’. Furthermore I repeated these orders on several occasions over the nine months I spent in Ireland. When two soldiers went against my orders by stealing chickens from an old lady I had them hung as an example to the rest. I also insisted that my soldiers pay for food, provisions etc. that they get from the country people. Indeed in one document that I wrote to the Catholic Clergy In Ireland from Youghal I emphasised TEN times that the ordinary people of Ireland were not to be deliberately harmed, and nor had they been deliberately harmed up to that point, and that was AFTER Drogheda and Wexford’.
Judge: (to you the Chieftain) ‘So far you have not produced any concrete evidence for your assertions. Is there any eye-witness testimony that proves Mr Cromwell killed unarmed, men women and children at Wexford – or even Drogheda?
It’s me again. Back in the room. There isn’t any eye-witness testimony so I wouldn’t even bother trying to look. Given the available evidence no objective judge or jury in the world would convict Cromwell of being a war criminal – unless they were a jury of baggage-carrying Irish traditionalists with an inherent bias.
And when it comes to research, in a book entitled Cromwell was Framed Ireland 1649, you will find an analysis of every shred of the popular (and some unpopular) primary source documents from both Drogheda and Wexford – including forensic investigations of Cromwell’s letters, and including the letter above you completely misinterpret, like so many with nationalist interests before you. And in case you haven’t put two and two together yet – my opening remarks above were sarcastic.
I don’t expect this to make a whit of difference to your insular opinions. And I can’t promise that I’ll blow the next stupid thing you say out of the water, like this one because quite frankly I can't be arsed. Me? I'm just saying what I've already said often in this thread. For God’s sake people can we not just grow up and accept the facts!!!0 -
Tom Reilly wrote: »Oh. I’m sorry. I was actually mistaken. You have access to Cromwell’s letter?!
...Snip of myth making....
Yes you are mistaken. Faced with a choice between your invention and Cromwell's own words I will stick with Cromwell. He did not say that his soldiers slaughtered all the soldiers who came their way, he says they slaughtered all who came their way - no qualifications. And then he gives thanks for this - to God. I need to thank you, by the way, for directly illustrating your penchant for invention with your little myth making story. It is of course completely ahistoric nonsense - you seem unaware that Cromwell, as defendant, would be unable to speak or make any statement in his own defense.0 -
The Chieftain wrote: »Except that facts are not in agreement with you. I don't need your misrepresentations when I can read Cromwell's own account, written at the very site of the atrocities, in Wexford. He wrote - in his own hand - that his soldiers:
"put all to the sword that came in their way."
What part of "all" do you not understand?
He also wrote:
"of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service."
So, only one in 20 left (5%), many dead, in Cromwell's own words. But then he was an expert propagandist, if I understand you correctly.
.
Rather than your last post you need to link to/ name your source as quoted above, as it has been questioned.
Moderator0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Rather than your last post you need to link to/ name your source as quoted above, as it has been questioned.
Moderator
http://www.irishhistorylinks.net/Historical_Documents/Cromwell.html#Wexford110 -
Advertisement
-
The Chieftain wrote: »
From the link
"the Enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them; and then put all to the sword that came in their way."
No mention of killing every man, woman and child.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »From the link
"the Enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them; and then put all to the sword that came in their way."
No mention of killing every man, woman and child.
There were no men, women and children in Wexford? "All who came their way" somehow did not include the inhabitants of the town? You also neglect Cromwell's further comment about only 5% of the populace remaining, and many of the inhabitants being dead - again the dead did not include men, women and children? What you propose is make-believe and denies history.
[As an aside, "The enemy making a stiff resistance" is impossible to reconcile with the casualty figures on the Commonwealth side - less than 20 as stated by Cromwell, and just one as stated by one of his officers].0 -
The Chieftain wrote: »There were no men, women and children in Wexford? "All who came their way" somehow did not include the inhabitants of the town? You also neglect Cromwell's further comment about only 5% of the populace remaining, and many of the inhabitants being dead - again the dead did not include men, women and children? What you propose is make-believe and denies history.
[As an aside, "The enemy making a stiff resistance" is impossible to reconcile with the casualty figures on the Commonwealth side - less than 20 as stated by Cromwell, and just one as stated by one of his officers].
I'm now convinced you can't actually read.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »I'm now convinced you can't actually read.
Fred- Please make your point without this type of smart alec comment. This thread is going around in circles without much progress now since it was revived by 'the Chieftain'. What is your point Chieftain- we know Wexford was attacked so what is your point???0 -
In Cromwell's own letter there in the link, which he calls his "Answer" to the garrison, he offers very good terms.The Chieftain wrote: »
In the following letter he explains that this well intentioned offer never got through, because for whatever reason, some of the defenders suddenly abandoned the walls, at which point Cromwells men made an instant decision to attack.
So it does appear that a Captain Stafford who abandoned his post due to some act of treachery or cowardice, caused the massacre. The town could have accepted the generous terms instead, laying down arms, thereby avoiding the massacre.
It seems to refer to armed men. The full excerpt reads "And when they were come into the market place, the enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them, and then put all to the sword who came in their way".The Chieftain wrote: »There were no men, women and children in Wexford? "All who came their way" somehow did not include the inhabitants of the town?
So "coming in the way" of the attackers seems to equate to "making a stiff resistance" ie they were referring to sporadic groups of armed defenders within the town.
The policy whereby Cromwell offered generous terms in advance of the attack benefited everyone. The people inside were spared. The attackers gained a useful town. Conversely, if the offer was refused, the defending soldiers had to be killed when the town was captured. Otherwise the threat would be meaningless, and it would not work on the next town.0 -
Actually, just looking at that Cromwell letter again, it seems Captain Stafford is blameless really. He seems to have known about the original terms and accepted them. So the castle he was in charge of surrendered, but the town behind the castle never did.
Stafford was probably peeved at being left out on the front line while Synott stalled for time by issuing his own set of terms which Cromwell was never going to accept.
Fuller account here.
There is no doubt that many civilians died in the ensuing mayhem, but the offer for them to surrender without loss of life was there beforehand.0 -
It may be the weekend before I have time to respond to the last three comments.
Have to actually work...0 -
In Cromwell's own letter there in the link, which he calls his "Answer" to the garrison, he offers very good terms.
In the following letter he explains that this well intentioned offer never got through, because for whatever reason, some of the defenders suddenly abandoned the walls, at which point Cromwells men made an instant decision to attack.
So it does appear that a Captain Stafford who abandoned his post due to some act of treachery or cowardice, caused the massacre. The town could have accepted the generous terms instead, laying down arms, thereby avoiding the massacre.
It seems to refer to armed men. The full excerpt reads "And when they were come into the market place, the enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them, and then put all to the sword who came in their way".
So "coming in the way" of the attackers seems to equate to "making a stiff resistance" ie they were referring to sporadic groups of armed defenders within the town.
The policy whereby Cromwell offered generous terms in advance of the attack benefited everyone. The people inside were spared. The attackers gained a useful town. Conversely, if the offer was refused, the defending soldiers had to be killed when the town was captured. Otherwise the threat would be meaningless, and it would not work on the next town.
Multiple points, but in brief.
- Everyone is agreed that Cromwell was actively engaged in negotiations at the very time the town of Wexford was stormed. In addition, everyone is agreed that the town did accept his "generous" (sic) terms, and English sources from his own army assert that they were actually signed by Cromwell. That is one basis for Cromwell being a war criminal, even by the standards of the day.
- I already provided a link for Cromwell's letters. If you follow that link, you will see that the text there is different than what you quoted. The difference is a semicolon. The semicolon makes the two clauses independent.
http://www.irishhistorylinks.net/Historical_Documents/Cromwell.html#Wexford11
- More importantly, you have to read all of Cromwell's letter. Later in the very same letter, he unambiguously states that the townspeople were put to death.
- That the defenders "made a stiff resistance" cannot be reconciled with the fact that Cromwell's rebel forces only lost (variously) one, five, or seven men, or under 20 according to Cromwell himself.
- That Cromwell managed to burn and sack the majority of the town, and kill 2,000 without killing the civilian inhabitants is not credible.
- Ten years later, the 1659 census shows that the Irish population of Wexford Town was just 380.
- Even more importantly, the testimony that Cromwell slaughtered men, women and children is documented in writing back to 1660, the earliest possible date.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »From the link
"the Enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them; and then put all to the sword that came in their way."
No mention of killing every man, woman and child.
Missed the semicolon, did we? That semicolon makes the clauses independent.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »This thread is going around in circles without much progress now since it was revived by 'the Chieftain'. What is your point Chieftain- we know Wexford was attacked so what is your point???
I have two key points.
The first and most important is that I think we owe it to the victims and to history to speak up and object to what I can only deem to be an example of "Holocaust denial" type of behaviour translated to Ireland.
The second is that Mr. Reilly's two central claims are false.
-His first claim is that the accusations against Cromwell are nothing but 19th Century propaganda, by "myth makers". I will not speak of Drogheda, but in the case of Wexford the following documents are available to disprove that claim:
* Cromwell's own letters, and those of his officers.
* The numbers in the 1659 census of Wexford.
* The statements in a formal petition from Wexford, dated 1660.
* English contemporary accounts.
* Contemporary accounts from survivors writing on the Continent.
* Depositions within the lifetime of survivors, e.g. one from 1706 I was looking at yesterday.
These sources demonstrate unambiguously that the charges against Cromwell are not a 19th century invention.
- Mr Reilly's second central claim appears to be that Cromwell did not slaughter the men, women and children of Wexford. Again, the contemporary sources unambiguously say he did.
My final point is that just as "debating" David Irving is to give him a credibility he does not deserve, so "debating" Tom Reilly appears to gives him a platform to keep repeating demonstrably false claims.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
There is alot of what passes for brainwashing in the Irish education system. Just look around at the 1916 commemorations. Nobody says "hey those guys had no mandate just like current dissidents - so lets celebrate the 1918 elections and the first dail instead because that gave legitimacy for the war of independence".
People are brainwashed to the point of being rabid when someone says "hey it may not be as it seems". They cant even begin to question it. I`v posted about 1916 and you would swear the British army was shooting people in Dublin right now with the responses you get.0 -
A semi-colon does not make a difference to the meaning of the sentence.The Chieftain wrote: »The difference is a semicolon. The semicolon makes the two clauses independent.
http://www.irishhistorylinks.net/Historical_Documents/Cromwell.html#Wexford11
If you mean this passage...The Chieftain wrote: »- More importantly, you have to read all of Cromwell's letter. Later in the very same letter, he unambiguously states that the townspeople were put to death.
that means something else entirely; that some of the armed men were spared the usual retribution and banished to the Caribbean instead....as for the banishment, it hath not hitherto been inflicted on any but such who, being in arms, might justly, upon the terms they were taken “under,” have been put to death
What he actually says in the letter about the civilian townspeople;The Chieftain wrote: »- Ten years later, the 1659 census shows that the Irish population of Wexford Town was just 380....of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service.
And your main assertion that the town had accepted Cromwell's terms, where is your source for that? Only the castle surrendered to him AFAIK. Synott with the main garrison was still stalling for time, thinking his reinforcements would save the day for him.0 -
Of course it does. Semicolons are not the same as commas.A semi-colon does not make a difference to the meaning of the sentence.
No, not that passage. You quote the relevant passage immediately afterwards.If you mean this passage... that means something else entirely; that some of the armed men were spared the usual retribution and banished to the Caribbean instead.
There, is that clearer?What he actually says in the letter about the civilian townspeople;
...of the former inhabitants, I believe scarce one in twenty can challenge any property in their houses. Most of them are run away, and many of them killed in this service.
See the extract in Hore's history from "A Very Full and Particular Relation &c"And your main assertion that the town had accepted Cromwell's terms, where is your source for that? Only the castle surrendered to him AFAIK. Synott with the main garrison was still stalling for time, thinking his reinforcements would save the day for him.
written at Wexford, 15th October 1649, which says
"my Lord [i.e. Cromwell] proffered... (terms)... This was accepted [i.e. by the Commissioners treating on behalf of the town] and by my Lord's hand signed.."0 -
The Chieftain wrote: »I have two key points.
The first and most important is that I think we owe it to the victims and to history to speak up and object to what I can only deem to be an example of "Holocaust denial" type of behaviour translated to Ireland.
.......
My final point is that just as "debating" David Irving is to give him a credibility he does not deserve, so "debating" Tom Reilly appears to gives him a platform to keep repeating demonstrably false claims.
This is a ridiculous comparison in my view. It belittles the rest of your argument. This is despite my having misgivings on the premise of the book by Mr Reilly. Without reading same I can't comment more.
You argue quite vehemently against Tom Reilly. Have you read the book?0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »This is a ridiculous comparison in my view. It belittles the rest of your argument. This is despite my having misgivings on the premise of the book by Mr Reilly. Without reading same I can't comment more.
You argue quite vehemently against Tom Reilly. Have you read the book?
Mr. Reilly's arguments and key points are very, very clear from what is posted here and elsewhere. I feel no need to spend money to read more of the same. If you feel my comparison to Holocaust denial is ridiculous, then so be it. However, from my viewpoint it is an apt comparison as the core of "holocaust denial" is a denial of documented facts with regard to mass murder. Mr. Reilly's core arguments similarly run afoul of ample documentation - just look at the list of 17th century documentation I provided. Yet, he asserts that the allegations against Cromwell are simply the result of 19th century myth making!0 -
Cromwell took the town 3 days earlier on the 11th.The Chieftain wrote: »See the extract in Hore's history from "A Very Full and Particular Relation &c"
written at Wexford, 15th October 1649, which says
"my Lord [i.e. Cromwell] proffered... (terms)... This was accepted [i.e. by the Commissioners treating on behalf of the town] and by my Lord's hand signed.."
Who is supposed to have written this, where in Wexford (ie the town or the county) and under what circumstances?0 -
Cromwell took the town 3 days earlier on the 11th.
Who is supposed to have written this, where in Wexford (ie the town or the county) and under what circumstances?
It is from a printed account of the taking of Wexford Town, published in England, from one of Cromwell's officers. As the title suggests, it was written as a "very full and particular account". There are some names and initials.0 -
So you're saying he wrote it in his diary a few days after taking the town, (presumably in secret, as it contradicts Cromwell's account) and then published it in England at some future time.
It sounds like an attempt by a former roundhead soldier to curry favour with the royalists, after they had re-instated the monarchy. Or else a forged account created by the royalists, to smear Cromwell's legacy.0 -
So you're saying he wrote it in his diary a few days after taking the town, (presumably in secret, as it contradicts Cromwell's account) and then published it in England at some future time.
It sounds like an attempt by a former roundhead soldier to curry favour with the royalists, after they had re-instated the monarchy. Or else a forged account created by the royalists, to smear Cromwell's legacy.
It was printed in 1649, so your suppositions are entirely incorrect. And it does not contradict Cromwell, it expands on his account.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well that could well be true. The defenders may have finally signed off on the terms of surrender, and Cromwell may have just received the document when the battle kicked off. If that was the case, then it was sent in too late. Too many delaying tactics had taken them right to the brink, and beyond.The Chieftain wrote: »And it does not contradict Cromwell, it expands on his account.
There were no walkie talkies in those days. Generals did not command their men directly. They placed their men into pre-planned positions, and then just hoped that they would respond well to "events". Often the general was able to choose when and where to send in "the reserves" but as far as the main battle was concerned, once it kicked off, they just watched it happen and hoped for a good outcome.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement