Was Cromwell framed for the "massacre" at Drogheda

The Chieftain

recedite wrote: »

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.

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.

Not so fast.
- It was then as much as now perfidy and treachery to launch an attack under cover of negotiations. In this case negotiations where terms were accepted and signed.
- Cromwell was present in person, in sight of what happened, and was commander-in-chief of the English rebels. He bore what is called command responsibility.
- Cromwell was aware, and by his own account took no action to prevent the attack on Wexford. On the contrary, he gave thanks to God for the result, and regretted only the loss of the houses.

recedite

The only treachery was on the part of the men on the city walls who abandoned their posts. On seeing this opportunity, Cromwells men seized the chance to attack on their own initiative. It would have been foolish not to.

The timing of the defenders was unfortunate, because it seems that Cromwell was just about to accept the surrender and order his men to stand down.

The Chieftain

recedite wrote: »

The only treachery was on the part of the men on the city walls who abandoned their posts. On seeing this opportunity, Cromwells men seized the chance to attack on their own initiative. It would have been foolish not to.

The timing of the defenders was unfortunate, because it seems that Cromwell was just about to accept the surrender and order his men to stand down.

Poppycock. Cromwell commanded a disciplined army not a rabble. His army, under his personal command, and in his direct presence, attacked and slaughtered both soldiers and civilians with whom he was actively treating for terms - had in fact agreed terms. Using negotiations, whether concluded or not, as cover for an attack is perfidy and treachery, which has always been a war crime. Cromwell is guilty of both that and mass murder.

recedite

Well its an interesting situation, but I don't think anyone can claim either point of view is definitely right. It deserves more research. Maybe some day somebody doing a research project could stage a sort of mock historical trial of Cromwell, wherein he was accused of committing war crimes in Wexford town.
A couple of things would have to be clarified, or else assumed. Such as the timing of the answer he received from the defenders of the besieged town, ie how long he had it before the attack kicked off. The location of his tent or HQ, and the distance to the point where the attack happened. Whether Cromwell would have been in a position to exercise enough direct control over enough of his men during the heat of battle to call off the attack.
Also, the reasons the defenders might have had for abandoning the city walls, prior to their surrender being acknowledged or accepted. Perhaps some of them thought that a general surrender of the town had been accepted when they saw the castle being surrendered, but if that was the case it was their own mistake.