Ironic Irishman.
-
jw_evans_wales — 17 years ago(August 02, 2008 05:52 AM)
Those were very different times compared to today, for example, the Welsh made up a huge part of the Royalist ranks in the Battle of Edgehill (as evidenced by a Parliamentarian commander at the time describing the Royalist army as being composed of "poor Welsh vermin"), and then later the Welsh fought alongside the Irish and English Royalists against the English Parliamentarians and Scottish Covenanters at the Battle of Naseby.
Today, what with UK devolution very much in force, the Welsh are somewhat far less keen on the Crown than those days.
Cymru am byth. -
kwloughman — 20 years ago(January 24, 2006 03:20 PM)
"gross Irish victim machine" nows thats a very sweeping statement, I wonder if you made it up yourself? You sound like another brit just trying to justify that now defunct dream of an empire - lest you forget Cromwell was the invader. Let me tell you something, the Irish aren't victims anymore & never shall be again.
-
Rangely8723 — 20 years ago(February 22, 2006 02:37 PM)
A curse upon you Oliver Cromwell
You who raped our Motherland
I hope you're rotting down in hell
For the horrors that you sent
To our misfortunate forefathers
Whom you robbed of their birthright
"To hell or Connaught" may you burn in hell tonight
(from: "Young Ned Of The Hill" lyrics)
Soylent Green is people! -
chainsaw148 — 20 years ago(March 29, 2006 01:47 PM)
Simple- OC was a very bad man- and hypocritical- refusing a position of king which bore considerably less power than Lord Protector. The Irish slaughter was needless and cost lives on both sides. Thank god he died when he did- otherwise he could have had the same terrible effect on history Mr Hitler did 300 years later
-
andrew-jones5 — 19 years ago(May 04, 2006 07:43 AM)
When the King stormed leicester, there was a slaughter and the town burnt. And Bristol much the same. Also his song was sung in birmingham still in the 19 centry. another song another 'war crime'
'When Rupert came to Birmingham,
We were in sorry plight.
Our blood God's earth did stain every day,
Our homes in blazing ruins lay,
And stained the sky at night.
With matchlock and with culverin,
With caliver and drake,
He shot our sons and fathers down,
And hell on earth did make.
Our children's cries, our widows' prayers,
Ascended with the flame,
And called down the wrath divine
Upon the Royal murderer's line,
And brought his kin to shame'.
But Where Drogeda differs is the massive scale of it the whole army 3000 in total put to the sword! I'm pro cromwell but i just can't see the same thing happening in england .
But for the cromwell knockers most of the above that has been put is way off beam , also what you have to remember that these irish where fighting for the king of England not Irish freedom (o'neils army in ulster was different). These Irish royalist troops had been brought over and stormed and attacked english towns when in the kings army. -
Koncorde — 19 years ago(May 05, 2006 10:37 AM)
Slaughter and burnings go hand in hand with most seiges. There's a romantacised view (occasionally propogated by the ideas of 'chivalry' that feature in many films) that when someone puts up a white flag the other side gets all pally, offers first aid and the senior officers from both sides share a smoke and a chinwag about their days at Eton.
They were the exceptions to the rule. [And 'polite' negotiations (just like the 'rules of engagement') were merely a pretence observed out of custom. The Napoleonic Wars were rife with butchery (Wellingtons troops for what it's worth being the best behaved of the lot by all accounts), as was the Hundred Years War (and again, the English were well behaved - it was French on French abuse that is more often than not remembered), The Crusades, Viking Invasions etc].
Not to paint a smilie face on things but historically 'British' troops have had the highest reputation for fair behaviour, and much of the regimented ideas (short back'n'sides, no thieving, no pillaging, no raping etc) were ideas implemented first by Mr. Oliver Cromwell. He was the first to raise standing regiments, a true professional army. The idea he would then let them run wild slaughtering runs clean against the grain of a man who had spent the better part of his life doing everything he could to be a better example, and better behaved, than those he wished to remove from power.
When it suits; history can be abused something rotten. Both in 'improving' a character beyond his weakness (i.e. Churchill) or in bringing a man low (Cromwell). You only have to look at the resurgence of William Wallace to see what creative history can do for a blokes profile (a murderer, turned outlaw, turned politico revolutionary and movie superstar) and what a spot of bad casting can do to a guys reputation (Sheriff of Nottingham was such a misunderstood man). -
Koncorde — 19 years ago(May 06, 2006 04:37 PM)
Oh aye, Richard came out rather badly - on the other side of the coin is of course Banquo (from Macbeth) who, after historically being party to the murder of Duncan, was 'edited' to be a brave and noble and die an ignonimous death with Fleance.
The reason?
His family ended up producing James VI of Scotland - better known as James I of England who happened to be on the throne at the time Shakespokingstick was writing the aforementioned play.
It pays not to criticise your Kings great great great great great great great grandfather (though reputedly the Banquo link was disproved, the play is still very much Macduff = superhero bringing the true thanes of Scotland to power, Stuarts obviously). -
Colkitto — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 06:37 AM)
Well,
in Holinshed
he's party to the murder of Duncan. In ACTUAL history Banquo almost certainly didn't exist. "Fleance" is a vague recollection of Flaald of Dol, a Breton whose descendants just happened to settle in Scotland.
Shakespeare does nod towards his sources though, when he makes Banquo pray: "Merciful powers, / Restrain me in the cursed thoughts that nature / Gives way to in repose": he's obviously
tempted
to murder Duncan, but he manages to resist - and doesn't have to resist very long, since Macbeth does the job for him!
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams
-
Sid-Blitzen — 19 years ago(October 09, 2006 07:57 AM)
"Thank god he died when he did- otherwise he could have had the same terrible effect on history Mr Hitler did 300 years later"
Cromwell would have had to do considerably more damage than he did, in order to be up there with Hitler. Cromwell's ambitions were nothing like as far-reaching. -
Sid-Blitzen — 19 years ago(February 12, 2007 06:14 AM)
"I'm disgusted that the movie portrays him as a hero and especially disgusted that he was played as a hero by an irishman"
To some, he is a hero. Thanks to him, the power of monarchy in Britain was considerably curtailed.
And surely the true sign of a talented actor is that they can play any kind of character, even those who might be repulsive to some? -
tenkisoratoti — 19 years ago(April 03, 2007 05:00 AM)
'Irish Victim Machine'
A fitting title.
Ireland should try looking at other Empire's history and then think how lucky they are to even exist. If Britain was anything like France, Russia, Germany, Turkey, etc Ireland would probably be a Bosnia.
The stories of butchery by Cromwell are vastly exagerated, made up my envious Irishmen who couldn't stand the fact that they had been beaten and conquered. -
ExGreenBeret — 18 years ago(April 16, 2007 09:24 AM)
The stories of butchery by Cromwell are vastly exagerated, made up my envious Irishmen who couldn't stand the fact that they had been beaten and conquered.
Dear God, a living eyewitness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A man who owns a gun is a CITIZEN. A man who does not is a SUBJECT.
.