Talk:Siege of Drogheda

message: 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.
::The word 'brutal' was POV, is meant to reflect the discussion of the outcome but the phrasing was out of alignment with the wider context. Have removed that specific word, but otherwise details all appear fine. If you have sources that can add detail about the siege please provide them. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought: The word "deliberate" would seem to be a redundancy in reference to a massacre, since massacres very rarely happen by accident. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deliberate" is not used within the article. It is mentioned once by one of the sources; and the use of "deliberate" in that case is to indicate that the intent of instructions by Cromwell was to kill non-combatants in their homes, rather than to just massacre the garrison. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: 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)
thread_title: Town Garrison at Time of Massacre

message: Are the dates given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar? Autarch (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. No idea to be honest!GiollaUidir (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Influence of 1641 Massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: Many of the English garrison had been paroled (see Parole#Prisoners_of_war) and were killed because they had broken their word, which was the normal practice at that time. This doesn't come across in the article. Once unarmed prisoners are being killed then mayhem often follows on others nearby.86.42.204.107 (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity and Original Research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Picture 

message: I am not sure what this means:
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 ) 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)
replies: text: Hi Phillip, The point is this, drawing mainly from Padraig Lenihan's 'Confederate Catholics at War (p166 to 189)'; Cromwell had never been trained in siege warfare, nor did he (open to correction on this) have engineers who had. People who had served in command of continental armies (such as Thomas Preston for instance) were taught how to systematically construct trenches that would allow siege guns to approach modern defences, no matter how well constructed and to open a breach. This could precede an assault but was usually the occasion for a negotiated surrender. The Parliamentary commanders, who learned thier siege warfare on the job, did not know how to go about this and their sieges in Ireland were either assaults - as at Drogheda, where defences had not been modernised and a breach could be successfully attacked - or blockades - as at Waterford, Limerick and Galway, where the Parliamentarians basically resorted to starving the cities into surrender. Where they -actually Cromwell himself - tried to assault modernised defences as at Clonmel they got a bloody nose. So at Drogheda we see an assault -in this case totally successful - because the only alternative was blockade and that was unacceptable in the circumstances. Anyway, I'd appeal for you not to shoot the messenger here as I was just citing what the recent military studies on the campaign have said! Jdorney (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Having read through the piece though, it is kind of unnecessary. Going to do a partial re-write. Jdorney (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is much better these days, credit to you Mr Dorney. I have made a few small edits to it that I feel help the pacing / readability of certain sections. There are some repeated / redundant statements still such as pointing out Aston was the "garrison commander" on 3 or 4 occasions in sequential paragraphs. We have a small discrepancy between the numbers of men that fled with Aston (one paragraph states 200, another 250) can this be clarified? Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks Koncorde, I'll check it out. Jdorney (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cromwell lacked the technical training 

message: Currently the article says:
But Cromwell wrote:(Wikisource:Cromwell letter to William Lenthall 17 September 1649)
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)
replies: text: I have added the text of John Hewson's letter to my previous comment. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two towers 

message: 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)
replies: text: I take it on face value you are telling the truth, but do you have an appropriate source that can be used. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start with the sources listed here. Parole was common but also a formalised process - https://mil-historicus.blogspot.com/2017/02/honor-and-atrocities-in-english-civil.html .78.17.38.158 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Aston's breach of parole