A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2012, September 11, 2014, and September 11, 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The opening paragraph is more propaganda than history, talking about the "brutal" outcome of the siege. The town was a protestant one, occupied by a hostile catholic army. The citizens were planning ways to throw open the gates and let Cromwell in. No citation or source is given for the "deliberate" civilian massacre, let alone reason why Cromwell would want to massacre protestant settlers he was there to liberate.
Is there any good source on what the composition of nationalities in the garrison in 1649 was? It is described as being 50:50 English/Irish in the first paragraph of the "Cromwell's siege (1649)" section but "the soldiers were in large part English Royalists rather than native Irish" in the foourth para of the "Debates over Cromwell's actions" section. Neither has a source so it would be good to have it ref'd either way. GiollaUidir ( talk) 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the dates given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar? Autarch ( talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that "righteous judgement" quote is categorically stated to refer to the 1641 Irish Massacre; whilst this is the traditional view, the relevant letter is ambiguous. As has been frequently pointed out (including in the article) it is a nonsensical/unconvincing justification for the "no quarter" order at Drogheda; however, Cromwell used similar language to Parliament when urging harsh measures about those who renewed the War in England in 1647-8. It seems equally if not more plausible that the "barbarous wretches" were the Royalist rebels who had defied 'God's judgement' in giving victory to Parliament. Of course, we can't know either way, but I'd be happier if the article acknowledged this ambiguity in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.85.214 ( talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems with this statement: The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.
Firstly, were there actually "laws of war" at this time, or just customs and conventions? (The article and talk page for Cromwellian conquest of Ireland suggests the former). In any case, this statement ought to have a citation if it is true.
Secondly, the implication of Cromwell's letter is ambiguous (possible intentionally so), beyond a mere threat/statement that if the town is not surrendured to him, he will take it by force. Reading more into it, while reasonable, would be OR without sources to back it up.
There are also a number of quotes from Cromwell that (a) need sources, and (b) are often given unsourced interpretations as well. For example: Cromwell himself denied that his troops had killed civilians at Drogheda, but only those "in arms".
When did he do this, and who was he talking to. ("Denied" implies he was answering an accusation). Is this statement based on the earlier quote Cromwell, in his own words, "In the heat of the action, forbade them [his soldiers] to spare any that were in arms in the town".? If so, this is definitely OR, and possibly incorrect as well. That is an order to kill anyone who is armed, not to spare everyone who wasn't. After all, all Catholic clergy were also killed.
Another example would be Cromwell's argument that the massacre was "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches...". Firstly, it would be good to know when, why and in what context he said this. Was he, for example, defending himself against accusations of misconduct, or bragging about his acts, or attempting to intimidate other towns into surrender, or something else?
Secondly, as 92.40.85.214 said above, it's not obvious from the quote what incident he was blaming Drogheda for. Was he incorrectly blaming them from the 1641 massacre? Was he refering to something else specifically? Was this just the way he talked about all his enemies? Have some historians incorrecly assumed he was talking about the 1641 massacre? And are there sources supporting any of these suggestions? Wardog ( talk) 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a less POV picture available to illustrate this? It doesn't exactly present an unbiased illustration. Jscb ( talk) 13:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems several editors have raised concerns previously, but no action has been taken. As such I have read through the article and found it to be poorly structured, with clear bias and uncited claims. Periodic reference to named historians aside there are very few citations for any claims being made, and the final section is a clear example of POV synthesis.
The lack of clarifying dates also leaves much to be desired, with evidence and sources not given their proper context.
I intend to rework this article, and will cull uncited original research if I am unable to locate a reference for such claims. Koncorde ( talk) 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what this means:
However, Cromwell lacked the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments and bombard a fortified place into surrender. "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade".
Yes, Cromwell was first and foremost a cavalry officer. But he did not have to have "the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments" that would be a job for an engineer. Wellington did not have "the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments" but I that did not stop him attacking towns and as far as I know it is not considered necessary for a commanding officer to be so trained. The quote "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade" is not clear if it means Cromwell himself or his army.
One point that has been made is that there were few non coastal forts (with the exception of Berwick) that were modern fortifications with defences capable of withstanding large siege artillery for any length of time (see Peter Harrington (2003). English Civil War Fortifications 1642-51 (illustrated ed.). Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1841766046.) However in that book Harrington notes in the introduction on page 6 that if necessary the besiegers did construct approach trenches to allow artillery to be positioned closer to the walls. So the techniques were used when needed, but for may places this was not necessary, for example Basing House fell within days of a decent siege train arriving -- as did several other Royalist forts on Cromwell's expedition through the county west of London in the Autumn of 45.
In this case, at the siege of Drogheda, Cromwell's judgement (whether advised by a senior artillery officer or not) was that a practical breach could be made quickly, he was proved right. So I do not understand the point that is being made in the quote above. -- PBS ( talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article says:
The final major concentration of Royalist soldiers was 200 men, who had been stationed in two towers. They stayed in the towers during the sack of the town but surrendered the following day, September 12. All of the officers and one in every ten ordinary soldiers were killed by being clubbed to death The rest were deported to Barbados.( Reilly 1999, p. 78)
But Cromwell wrote:( Wikisource:Cromwell letter to William Lenthall 17 September 1649)
divers of the officers and soldiers being fled over the Bridge into the other part of the Town, where about 100 of them possessed St. Peter's Church-steeple, some the west Gate, and others a strong Round Tower next the Gate called St. Sunday's. [Those in the steeple were burnt to death] ...
The next day, the other two Towers were summoned; in one of which was about six or seven score: but they refused to yield themselves: and we knowing that hunger must compel them, set only good guards to secure them from running away until their stomachs were come down. From one of the said Towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded some of our men. When they submitted, their officers were knocked on the head; and every tenth man of the soldiers killed; and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. The soldiers in the other Tower were all spared, as to their lives only; and shipped likewise for the Barbadoes.
So we know the names of the towers "the west Gate" and a "Round Tower next the Gate called St. Sunday's". They were occupied by officers and soldiers who had "fled over the Bridge" the night before, not by men stationed there.
Six or seven score in one tower is 120 to 140. So where does the 200 come from? The treatment of the men in the two towers was different. Only in one tower were the defenders decimated (because they shot some Roundheads). So the current paragraph is contradicted by Cromwell's letter which is of course a primary source, so could someone quote what Reilly wrote, because I suspect he has been mis-summarised. -- PBS ( talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The 200 comes from a letter written by Colonel John Hewson published in Perfect Occurrences October 5 1649. He also reports 3,000 dead of which 150 were Roundheads:
The rest fled over the bridge where they were closely pursued and most of them slain. Some got in two towers on the wall and some into the steeple but, they refusing to come down, the steeple was fired and then fifty of them got out at the top of the church, but the enraged soldiers put them all to the sword, and thirty of them were burnt in the fire, some of them cursing and crying out “God Damn them" and cursed their souls as they were burning. Those in the towers, being about 200, did yield to the General's mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados. In this slaughter there was by my observation, at least, 3,000 dead bodies lay in the fort and the streets, whereof there could not be 150 of them of our army, for I lost more than any other regiment and there
was not sixty killed outright of my men.
— Colonel John Hewson, letter, in Perfect Occurrences 5 October 1649 -- copied from Ellis, Peter Berresford (2007). Eyewitness to Irish History (reprint ed.). John Wiley and Sons. p. 114. ISBN 9780470053126.
Scott Wheeler, James. Cromwell in Ireland, Dublin 1999, on Page 87: snippet snippet 2 snippet 3
The final mass atrocities committed by the attackers took place at St Peter's Church and at the towers on the north wall. ... Cromwell gave the word to pile the church pews under the steeple and set fire to them so as to burn out the fugitives. The scheme worked: '50 of them got out of the church, but the enraged soldiers put them all to the sword, and 30 of them were burned in the fire, some of them cursing and crying out, God damn them ... Those in the towers [on the north wall] being about 200 did yield to the General's mercy.' All the officers were killed, and the great majority of the common soldiers were shipped to Barbados.88
also uses Hewson's letter. -- PBS ( talk) 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention that Sir Arthur Aston and his force had been released "on Parole" by the parliamentarian army in England, and had then gone to Ireland and effectively broken their word by rearming and opposing the same army. That kicked off the massacre. Aston could have surrendered the town, and, while he and his men would probably have been executed for breaking their paroles, the local inhabitants would have been occupied (as Dublin was) with no massacre. I know it spoils a good story, but that's what happened. 78.17.38.186 ( talk) 10:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2012, September 11, 2014, and September 11, 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The opening paragraph is more propaganda than history, talking about the "brutal" outcome of the siege. The town was a protestant one, occupied by a hostile catholic army. The citizens were planning ways to throw open the gates and let Cromwell in. No citation or source is given for the "deliberate" civilian massacre, let alone reason why Cromwell would want to massacre protestant settlers he was there to liberate.
Is there any good source on what the composition of nationalities in the garrison in 1649 was? It is described as being 50:50 English/Irish in the first paragraph of the "Cromwell's siege (1649)" section but "the soldiers were in large part English Royalists rather than native Irish" in the foourth para of the "Debates over Cromwell's actions" section. Neither has a source so it would be good to have it ref'd either way. GiollaUidir ( talk) 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the dates given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar? Autarch ( talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that "righteous judgement" quote is categorically stated to refer to the 1641 Irish Massacre; whilst this is the traditional view, the relevant letter is ambiguous. As has been frequently pointed out (including in the article) it is a nonsensical/unconvincing justification for the "no quarter" order at Drogheda; however, Cromwell used similar language to Parliament when urging harsh measures about those who renewed the War in England in 1647-8. It seems equally if not more plausible that the "barbarous wretches" were the Royalist rebels who had defied 'God's judgement' in giving victory to Parliament. Of course, we can't know either way, but I'd be happier if the article acknowledged this ambiguity in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.85.214 ( talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems with this statement: The contemporary laws of war were clear that if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by an assault, then the lives of its defenders would be forfeit, as Cromwell's letter strongly implies.
Firstly, were there actually "laws of war" at this time, or just customs and conventions? (The article and talk page for Cromwellian conquest of Ireland suggests the former). In any case, this statement ought to have a citation if it is true.
Secondly, the implication of Cromwell's letter is ambiguous (possible intentionally so), beyond a mere threat/statement that if the town is not surrendured to him, he will take it by force. Reading more into it, while reasonable, would be OR without sources to back it up.
There are also a number of quotes from Cromwell that (a) need sources, and (b) are often given unsourced interpretations as well. For example: Cromwell himself denied that his troops had killed civilians at Drogheda, but only those "in arms".
When did he do this, and who was he talking to. ("Denied" implies he was answering an accusation). Is this statement based on the earlier quote Cromwell, in his own words, "In the heat of the action, forbade them [his soldiers] to spare any that were in arms in the town".? If so, this is definitely OR, and possibly incorrect as well. That is an order to kill anyone who is armed, not to spare everyone who wasn't. After all, all Catholic clergy were also killed.
Another example would be Cromwell's argument that the massacre was "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches...". Firstly, it would be good to know when, why and in what context he said this. Was he, for example, defending himself against accusations of misconduct, or bragging about his acts, or attempting to intimidate other towns into surrender, or something else?
Secondly, as 92.40.85.214 said above, it's not obvious from the quote what incident he was blaming Drogheda for. Was he incorrectly blaming them from the 1641 massacre? Was he refering to something else specifically? Was this just the way he talked about all his enemies? Have some historians incorrecly assumed he was talking about the 1641 massacre? And are there sources supporting any of these suggestions? Wardog ( talk) 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a less POV picture available to illustrate this? It doesn't exactly present an unbiased illustration. Jscb ( talk) 13:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems several editors have raised concerns previously, but no action has been taken. As such I have read through the article and found it to be poorly structured, with clear bias and uncited claims. Periodic reference to named historians aside there are very few citations for any claims being made, and the final section is a clear example of POV synthesis.
The lack of clarifying dates also leaves much to be desired, with evidence and sources not given their proper context.
I intend to rework this article, and will cull uncited original research if I am unable to locate a reference for such claims. Koncorde ( talk) 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what this means:
However, Cromwell lacked the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments and bombard a fortified place into surrender. "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade".
Yes, Cromwell was first and foremost a cavalry officer. But he did not have to have "the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments" that would be a job for an engineer. Wellington did not have "the technical training to systematically construct siege entrenchments" but I that did not stop him attacking towns and as far as I know it is not considered necessary for a commanding officer to be so trained. The quote "The Cromwellian siegework repertoire included only the first and/or last stages; that is assault, or failing that, blockade" is not clear if it means Cromwell himself or his army.
One point that has been made is that there were few non coastal forts (with the exception of Berwick) that were modern fortifications with defences capable of withstanding large siege artillery for any length of time (see Peter Harrington (2003). English Civil War Fortifications 1642-51 (illustrated ed.). Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1841766046.) However in that book Harrington notes in the introduction on page 6 that if necessary the besiegers did construct approach trenches to allow artillery to be positioned closer to the walls. So the techniques were used when needed, but for may places this was not necessary, for example Basing House fell within days of a decent siege train arriving -- as did several other Royalist forts on Cromwell's expedition through the county west of London in the Autumn of 45.
In this case, at the siege of Drogheda, Cromwell's judgement (whether advised by a senior artillery officer or not) was that a practical breach could be made quickly, he was proved right. So I do not understand the point that is being made in the quote above. -- PBS ( talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article says:
The final major concentration of Royalist soldiers was 200 men, who had been stationed in two towers. They stayed in the towers during the sack of the town but surrendered the following day, September 12. All of the officers and one in every ten ordinary soldiers were killed by being clubbed to death The rest were deported to Barbados.( Reilly 1999, p. 78)
But Cromwell wrote:( Wikisource:Cromwell letter to William Lenthall 17 September 1649)
divers of the officers and soldiers being fled over the Bridge into the other part of the Town, where about 100 of them possessed St. Peter's Church-steeple, some the west Gate, and others a strong Round Tower next the Gate called St. Sunday's. [Those in the steeple were burnt to death] ...
The next day, the other two Towers were summoned; in one of which was about six or seven score: but they refused to yield themselves: and we knowing that hunger must compel them, set only good guards to secure them from running away until their stomachs were come down. From one of the said Towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded some of our men. When they submitted, their officers were knocked on the head; and every tenth man of the soldiers killed; and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. The soldiers in the other Tower were all spared, as to their lives only; and shipped likewise for the Barbadoes.
So we know the names of the towers "the west Gate" and a "Round Tower next the Gate called St. Sunday's". They were occupied by officers and soldiers who had "fled over the Bridge" the night before, not by men stationed there.
Six or seven score in one tower is 120 to 140. So where does the 200 come from? The treatment of the men in the two towers was different. Only in one tower were the defenders decimated (because they shot some Roundheads). So the current paragraph is contradicted by Cromwell's letter which is of course a primary source, so could someone quote what Reilly wrote, because I suspect he has been mis-summarised. -- PBS ( talk) 01:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The 200 comes from a letter written by Colonel John Hewson published in Perfect Occurrences October 5 1649. He also reports 3,000 dead of which 150 were Roundheads:
The rest fled over the bridge where they were closely pursued and most of them slain. Some got in two towers on the wall and some into the steeple but, they refusing to come down, the steeple was fired and then fifty of them got out at the top of the church, but the enraged soldiers put them all to the sword, and thirty of them were burnt in the fire, some of them cursing and crying out “God Damn them" and cursed their souls as they were burning. Those in the towers, being about 200, did yield to the General's mercy, where most of them have their lives and be sent to Barbados. In this slaughter there was by my observation, at least, 3,000 dead bodies lay in the fort and the streets, whereof there could not be 150 of them of our army, for I lost more than any other regiment and there
was not sixty killed outright of my men.
— Colonel John Hewson, letter, in Perfect Occurrences 5 October 1649 -- copied from Ellis, Peter Berresford (2007). Eyewitness to Irish History (reprint ed.). John Wiley and Sons. p. 114. ISBN 9780470053126.
Scott Wheeler, James. Cromwell in Ireland, Dublin 1999, on Page 87: snippet snippet 2 snippet 3
The final mass atrocities committed by the attackers took place at St Peter's Church and at the towers on the north wall. ... Cromwell gave the word to pile the church pews under the steeple and set fire to them so as to burn out the fugitives. The scheme worked: '50 of them got out of the church, but the enraged soldiers put them all to the sword, and 30 of them were burned in the fire, some of them cursing and crying out, God damn them ... Those in the towers [on the north wall] being about 200 did yield to the General's mercy.' All the officers were killed, and the great majority of the common soldiers were shipped to Barbados.88
also uses Hewson's letter. -- PBS ( talk) 03:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention that Sir Arthur Aston and his force had been released "on Parole" by the parliamentarian army in England, and had then gone to Ireland and effectively broken their word by rearming and opposing the same army. That kicked off the massacre. Aston could have surrendered the town, and, while he and his men would probably have been executed for breaking their paroles, the local inhabitants would have been occupied (as Dublin was) with no massacre. I know it spoils a good story, but that's what happened. 78.17.38.186 ( talk) 10:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)