Big Mick,

I'm no fan of Cromwell, but

"...Dress it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the events at Drogheda (anybody else pay attention to the fact that this attack occurred on 9/11 1649) and Wexford included the massacre of large numbers of civilians. We know that Cromwell initial orders indicated that excessive violence was to be avoided then he did nothing to stop that same violence...."

As Les from Hull pointed out, if a town had to be taken by storm, then, under the rules of war at that period, the town belonged to the soldiers (not the Army) for a time, it was 'given over to sack', effectively all the rules of civilised behaviour went out of the window, this was partially because the men who'd had to storm the town were high on adrenaline and it's doubtful if they could have been controlled; Partly because those same men had seen their friends being killed all around them in the assault and were in no state of mind to be friendly to those who'd been trying to kill them (remembering that the defence was not left only to the military); Partly because it's odds on that the assaulting army hadn't been paid for some time and a stormed town gave opportunities for loot and because the sacking of a town was an horriffic affair and served as a lesson to other such towns which were likely to be beseiged and may cause them to surrender before being stormed (thus saving life - and time - for the besieging forces and saving the town from sacking).

By today's standards this was barbaric but then was fairly standard practice - check the Thirty Years War.

I honestly believe that Cromwell couldn't have stopped the massacres even if it had been his dearest wish.

W