In the Gaelteacht areas, the signs are usually exclusively as Gaeilge!
Posted on 11/14/2006 8:32:32 AM PST by xzins
Massacre of Drogheda under Oliver Cromwell.
the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
After the massacre, Oliver Cromwell declared to the English Parliament, "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion [shedding] of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret."
Oliver Cromwell, responsible for a massacre. Just what happened at Drogheda, Ireland on this day, September 11, 1649 is hard to pin down with certainty. Two groups stood to gain by issuing propaganda against Cromwell. The Irish hoped to inflame patriotic fervor by magnifying the event and certain Englishmen hoped to discredit Cromwell because they feared his growing power.
Parliament had sent the Protestant Cromwell into Catholic Ireland to subdue it and prevent Prince Charles from landing and preparing an invasion from the nearby Island (he used Scotland as his launch pad instead). Aware that previous armies had bogged down in Ireland, usually because of insufficient financing, Cromwell insisted on having the necessary money in hand before he sailed. That way he could pay for supplies as he needed them and not make enemies by robbing the common folk. Once in Ireland, he moved quickly, knowing that a drawn-out war favored the inhabitants, not the invaders.
The situation in Ireland was complex. The Irish were badly divided and several betrayed their own towns. They offered little effective resistance to Cromwell. In fact, he reduced opposition across most of the island within eight months, although subordinates required another decade to complete the work he had begun.
Drogheda was one of the first cities Cromwell faced. He offered fair terms and gave his men strict instructions against excessive violence. However, the situation fluctuated a good deal. As Drogheda's fortunes waned or waxed, the garrison alternately negotiated or stalled. Cromwell's troops broke through the wall before negotiations were complete (possibly with inside help) and rushed through the town, killing virtually everyone in the city. They set fire to St. Mary's church, burning alive those who had taken refuge in it and then butchered women hiding in the vaults below. Some accounts say they used Irish children as human shields and killed every priest, treating them like combatants, because they had encouraged the defenders. According to those tales, only thirty defenders survived and they were sold as slaves to Barbados. At least one of the English soldiers claimed that Cromwell himself ordered the slaughter.
Defenders of Cromwell say that not only did he not order the slaughter but that the massacre of the women never happened. Cromwell himself insisted (even before he left Ireland) that no one in arms was massacred, destroyed or banished. His statement fell short of denying that civilians were slaughtered. Tales of civilian massacres increased at the time of the restoration of the English throne when it was both politically correct and safe to say the worst things one could about the man who cut off the head of King Charles I.
Whatever the truth, Cromwell surely is to blame for not attempting to stop the massacre. By the brutal standards of the time, killing a defiant garrison was acceptable, but butchering civilians was not. By his own statement, it is clear Cromwell hoped that the events at Drogheda (and at Wexford a few days later) would shorten the war. At Wexford, his troops committed another massacre, although apparently without his approval. A priest writing over a century later claimed 300 women were slaughtered beside a cross at which they had taken refuge and seven friars were killed in the performance of their duty. Whether this is true or not, Cromwell considered the victory an unexpected providence and said he prayed that God would have all the glory.
The present religious troubles in Ireland were aggravated by the events at Drogheda and Wexford. British soldiers, for example, are called "Cromwell's lads." However, it would be unjust to leave the impression that Cromwell's campaign was the beginning of the Irish religious troubles. Eight years before Cromwell's invasion, for instance, Catholics slaughtered hundreds of Protestant civilians in Ulster.
Resources:
Allen, John. One Hundred Great Lives. New York: Journal of Living, 1944.
Coonan, Thomas L. The Irish Catholic Confederacy and the Puritan Revolution. New York: Columbia University, 1954.
Copeland, Lewis. World's Greatest Speeches. New York: Book League of America, p. 147ff.
"Cromwell." A History of the Irish Race.
(www.ireland.org/irl_hist/hist31.htm) "Cromwell, Oliver." Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921 - 1996.
"Cromwell and the Drogheda Massacre." (www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/ makhist7_prog5c.shtml)
"Cromwell Devastates Ireland." www.doyle.com.au/cromwell.htm).
( Drinkwater, John. Oliver Cromwell. New York: George H. Doran, 1927.
Hill, Christopher. God's Englishman; Oliver Cromwell and the English revolution. Harper and Row, 1970. Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. New York: Fawcett, 1964; p. 252.
Smellie, Alexander. Men of the Covenant. Revell, 1903. Source of the image.
Yes, there was that little divorce thingy.
I'm not sure how apt this comparison is.
Wasn't that really a struggle about who would control the line of Kings ? Having Parliament decide the King, if compared to a modern day context, would be similar to having the US Congress choose the US President. Granted the US Electoral College system is somewhat similar, but it rarely votes against the wishes of the people. Without a democratic voting system, basing the line of Kings on heredity may really be the only check and balance the serfs had to potentially prevent them from being ruled by a cabal of corrupt rich Lords. And of course without democracy the serfs back then could only hope the line of Kings would stay righteous and fair. Thus, they relied on divine right. 'In God We Trust'.
Strongly held religious convictions to the point of war is a similarity. They are part of the mix in Iraq and in Ireland. I agree that the US does not see this as a religious conquest.
And Cromwell did.
I don't mean to discount your comparison; religion is the subtext in everything that happens in the Middle East. I just don't think the West has the religious critical mass (pardon the pun) to mount a crusade again. And I don't think Islam has the cohesion. So it's a matter of apathy versus chaos.
At least at the religious level ...
Whatever the West is fighting for, it isn't Christianity.
Thanks for the ping. Cromwell did what had to be done to pull England out of the dark ages of divine right of kings and the self-perpetuating parliament. For doing all this, of course, he has been slandered for 350 years.
However, there are many parallels.
One I find intriguing is the eventual requirement to separate the warring forces, as much as possible, into 2 separate nations.
Cromwell did bring a religious element in with his, but we could say that the US is bringing a political element in that is at odds with the religious history of Iraq. The democratization of Iraq is a contrary doctrine to Islam. This democratization is a matter of faith.....that all the world would be better were it democratic.
What's taking so long....they should redeploy...../s
Thanks for posting this History....
Funny that nobody is calling for the Brits to pull out of Ireland, quagmire though it is.
And go against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland??? This isn't DU, you should instead be calling for the destruction of Sinn Fein/IRA as well as their Loyalist counterparts!!
Eradicating the IRA, the UVF and UFF will solved that problem!
Easy big fella,
I'm Irish, but I was just using that situation to show the outsized expectations people have for resolving the situation in Iraq.
I might add that the UN would love for us to invade the Sudan and deal with the situation in Darfur, which is a bit of idiotic irony.
I'm not apologizing for the IRA at all.
the Guiness is fresher there.
Ah.. I see what you're point is, but we have people here on FR who do defend them, I jumped the gun, my apologies!
I'll re-ping my list, just to set the record straight.
No need my FRiend. Honest mistake.
You can add me to your ping list. I love being Irish.
Ok, done! :)
How disgraceful!
Two Irishmen declining to fight!
;-)
I know... I could go trolling again on terrorist Danny Morrison's website! ;)
In the Gaelteacht areas, the signs are usually exclusively as Gaeilge!
From the muslim point of view, your Cromwell allusion is probably apt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.