17th Century American Violence

Under the rules of 17th century siege warfare the New Model Army were allowed to kill the townspeople, however this right was rarely if ever exercised. The attitude was that revenge could be taken upon a town that took so much effort to besiege. Even during many of the brutal wars in Europe at the time much of the violence, such as those that took place during the French Wars of Religion were in fact conducted by angry mobs. This piece of parliamentary brutality was different and was much more reflective of the state organized violence that followed the French Revolution 140 years later. The only civilian account we have was written by Dean Barnard, a Royalist and Protestant cleric tells is that people were slaughtered in their own homes. This style of violence was conducted by an army directed by a parliament that was willing to hold on to power at all costs. Irish contemporaries at the time were certainly shocked at what happened on Tredagh. The marquis of Ormond at the time
However, this is a view that historians seem to always use when an army massacres civilians. It seems more likely that this operation was conducted purposefully with the aim of furthering his cause on the island of Ireland. Cromwell in his letter to Sinnott was effectively stating that his army would be let loose in the town if there was no surrender. It could be argued, like Tom Reilly that the blame is on Sinnott; however, like the argument provided by Scott-Wheeler it does not suffice. Both are very simple arguments and take a huge proportion of the guilt away from Cromwell himself. The fact is, Cromwell was the Commander-in-chief of the New Model Army. It was up to him and him alone to keep control of his soldiers. If he was incapable of doing this, then he was in the wrong role to begin