17th Century FORUM
"Cromwell's Crusade in Ireland" Campaign
Draconifer
Any thought in The Siege of Clonmel as a specific campaign title?
I find the choice of title interesting. Why "crusade"?
I thought only the Pope had that authority to declare crusades.
Report offensive material
RESPONSES
| CWyatt |
1
It would be a crusade with a small c, not an ‘official’ crusade, but a religious war. Although religion was not the sole reason for Cromwell’s campaign
Posted: 25-Jun-2009 12:32
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
2
Yes Sir. Quite Correct.
Cromwell I understand was interested in
paying debts accumulated from funding the New Model Army.
He was attempting to confiscate the best land in Ireland to repay his donors. Propagandaist euphamisms plays a part in all such foriegn campaigns. Any zealotry was secondary to economic practicality.
Honestly the surviving Royalists were not treated much better.
Their last bastions were massacred as well.
Between the coup of Thomas Fairfax, the enthusiastic restoration, and the posthumous beheading of Oliver Cromwell, I do think that English suffering in the interregnum period is understated.
Posted: 27-Jun-2009 08:58
Report offensive material
|
| Rebel |
3
Hi,
well the use of the word "crusade" (with a little c) was intended to convey the nature of what was for many Englishmen an essentially religious conflict. In writing the book, I've relied on a lot of the original correspondence and I hope that not only will the reader see a gradual change in Cromwell's attitude to the war in Ireland as a whole, but also note that there are a number of his senior officers who were - for want of a better phrase - even more extreme in their beliefs.
Having said that, the events of - say the Siege of Colchester - should not really be directly compared with events in Ireland. At Colchester, the Commonwealth troops were let loose by Fairfax (and a number of the senior Royalist officers executed) as a result of a combination of frustration and exasperation - Many had been previously captured and had subsequently given their parole but had still risen up in arms again, one of these (IIRC) being Sir Charles Lucas - as a friend of mine succintly puts it, it's a case of "How many * * * * must we knock you down before you give it up"? In Ireland, there really was a religious undercurrent, and to use a modern analogy a certain amount of "spin" in how it was reported, both officially and unofficially and again, I hope that some aspects of this come across within the text.
As to Clonmel, to be honest there is not enough material for it to make a "Campaign" series title in its' own right, but I would hope that it is covered in sufficient detail for you. Although the Commonwealth OOB at Clonmel is basically the result of elimination of units that we either can prove were or were not there after whittling through the succession of colonels, I do have the Coalition OOB down to company level - and can post it here if a) your wish and b) posting rules permit - It does show the Clan nature of the Éoghan Rua Ó Neíll's original Ulster forces.
All the best,
Mike.
Posted: 06-Jul-2009 13:10
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
4
Fair enough Sir.
The connotation inspired by Drogheda's or Clonmel's ramparts and populations were in the eye of the beholder. In terms of the commander and individual soldiers as well?
Certainly accounts of the siege by the commanders
hinted at a vindictive element based upon the
respective religious identities. Factionalism delineated
upon religious identitiy was the catalyst for the
intial Civil War and ensuing Bishop's war. It was the culmination I believe of events such as the Covenanter struggle. That basically
acting as a demarcation point for the war factions to
mobilise. The subsequent rebellion of some of Scotland after the regicide of King Charles is an interesting apect in that it was more
idealistically motivated and rooted I would say in nationalism.
Essentially testing/probing the new balance of power or exploiting a potential power vacuum. Besides Dunbar there was not I have
read as much of a vindictive edge to the zealotry. That strengthens
your theory as there was a heavier influence of common religion demoniation in Scotland. Hence secular war v.s. religious fanaticism.
The parliametarians had a firm religious stance. This in evidence
by the interegnum period's more puritanical theocracy.
If you also read accounts of the New Spain conquests
during the Lord Protector's time there is an element of overt religious animosity.
It does come down to the study of war's intention itself.
If nationalism is a manifestation of territorial imperative
cannot holy war so-called be a subconscious manifestation
of that same impulse which is firmly grounded in violent instinct as opposed to lofty principle? I would argue yes.
Posted: 08-Jul-2009 06:20
Report offensive material
|
| Ironside |
5
A couple of years ago I wrote an essay entitled '"To draw the sword in a better cause": Oliver Cromwell - Protestant crusader?' My own conclusion was, ultimately, that he wasn't (although that doesn't necessarily mean some of his officers weren't, of course). One of the things I covered was his actions in Ireland. It's interesting that when, in his post-Drogheda letter, Cromwell describes it as "a righteous judgement upon those barbarous wretches who have imbued their hands in so much blood", most commentators are quick to assume he was referring to the Irish Massacre. They then point out that Cromwell was talking rubbish since, as he should have known, few in the garrison were Catholics, let alone ones involved in the Massacre. My own view is that perhaps, therefore, he meant something else. My theory is that he was simply commenting on the renewal of the Civil Wars by the Irish after (as he would have seen it) God had twice given victory to the Parliamentarians. It's worth remembering that in the wake of the Second Civil War Cromwell was urging harsh measures against Royalists "because they have sinned against so much light, and against so many evidences of Divine Presence".
I can't judge the new book without reading it, though the use of the word "crusade" smacks of a bias against the Parliamentarians. Still, if politicians can declare a crusade against litter, I think the Irish Campaign qualifies!!
Posted: 14-Aug-2009 21:15
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
6
Technically speaking the term "crusade" was not used in it's own time of Pope Urban. It was later applied to the military campaigns to the East and to stifle heretical sects and European "pagans". It is applicable in this context in that just as the crusaders and pontiffs had darker ulterior motives behind the lofty rationales so too did the Parliamentarians have
more pragmatic reasons motivating the invasion besides the propaganda and zealotry. Cromwell himself was very driven by his theocratic ideals but he also was a firm realist and had practicality in mind foremost. That winning combination was how he triumphed over the Royalists. The use of the term "crusade" in the 21st century exemplifies how derivative it has become while maintaining it's connotation.
Posted: 02-Sep-2009 22:12
Report offensive material
|