It is not just to severely condemn Cromwell for his action in Ireland.
He lived in the seventeenth, not the nineteenth century, and acted
according to his lights. His Irish campaigns have been described as
“a series of blood-massacres, the just punishment of atrocious deeds,
or as the fanatical orgie of a tyrant. This was a complete perversion
of fact, and Cromwell’s conduct in Ireland had yet to be judged
impartially by a candid historian and by a competent thinker on war.
No doubt he was a stern and severe conqueror; no doubt they turned
their eyes away from Wexford and Drogheda; no doubt Cromwell and his
avenging host regarded Celtic Papists as accursed idolaters, dripping
with the carnage of 1641, and to be trodden under foot, like the doomed
tribes of Palestine were crushed ‘at the bidding of the Lord’; but
when he set foot in Ireland, he had to deal with a nation in armed
and furious revolt, which had a country difficult in the extreme to
penetrate. The experiences of previous Irish wars had shown, that under
conditions like these, it was essential to strike hard at once, and the
peculiarities of the Irish climate, fatal in the seventeenth century
to British troops, made it necessary to avoid the inland districts,
and, if possible, to obtain immediate success. These considerations
explained his deeds in Ireland. He was pitiless and inexorable, but
he acted upon a far-sighted policy, and his generalship was bold,
decided, and brilliant. His severity at Drogheda, he told them himself,
was calculated ‘to prevent the effusion of blood.’ Just as Villars
deliberately starved Fribourg, just as the garrison of Pampeluna
would have been put to the sword had it not yielded to the summons of
Wellington.”[12]
Whatever be the criticism of the means he employed, the end was that
all open rebellion had ceased by 1653.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, too, the war-cloud had again burst; and though
Fairfax resigned rather than invade that country, Cromwell either had
less scruples, or was more firmly determined to put down all armed
insurrection to the Republic, and assumed command of a fresh army of
the North.
But the actions were, except that at Dunbar, disconnected and
inconclusive. There were the usual small affairs, minor sieges and
operations in an exceptionally difficult country. Whether Cromwell
wilfully left the doorway into England open or not is doubtful, though
Colonel Walford is of opinion he did; but be that as it may, the Scotch
army fell into a trap, marched into England as far as Worcester, and
there met what Cromwell and his party thought the crowning mercy of
defeat. His army had marched to that victory for twenty-four days, and
had covered in that time 350 miles.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account