Why Does Companion 1 not treat Drogheda and Magdeburg equal?

[timmy1]

I know that Drogheda forms part of the national myth of my ancestors but I don't understand why the Confederate Irish list states 'Oliver Cromwell ... as the massacres at Drogheda ... show', whereas neither Tilly nor Pappenheim are mentioned in association with the Sack of Magdeburg. The latter event had perhaps seven times as many casulties as the former. Is it because the authors believe that Pappenheim did not intend the Sack?

[Scrumpy]

I blame Richard Harris myself.

[SirGarnet]

Maybe because Tilly and Pappenheim and Magdeburg draw no ire in Germany, which, unlike Ireland, has had a number of rather worse events in more recent time which they also prefer not to remember.

[david53]

I know that Drogheda forms part of the national myth of my ancestors but I don't understand why the Confederate Irish list states 'Oliver Cromwell ... as the massacres at Drogheda ... show', whereas neither Tilly nor Pappenheim are mentioned in association with the Sack of Magdeburg. The latter event had perhaps seven times as many casulties as the former. Is it because the authors believe that Pappenheim did not intend the Sack?

What you seem to be missing in both these events.

Both sets of defenders were asked to surrender when the walls were breached, this was the convention at the time.

If you failed to as the case of Drogheda if you forced the attackers to attack the breach, you gave up the right to fair treatment your life was in the hands of the attacker if they took the city castle town.

In Magdeburg the attackers were forced to scale the walls after rejecting the offer of surrender.

There are more cases of this happening in both the 30years war and ECW, the reason was simple you force the attackers to risk there lives you can't then ask for mercey when they enter the town.

[david53]

Maybe because Tilly and Pappenheim and Magdeburg draw no ire in Germany, which, unlike Ireland, has had a number of rather worse events in more recent time which they also prefer not to remember.

Or maybe that was the convention at the time and we are looking to it with 21st century eyes.

[rbodleyscott]

Or possibly because the lists were written by different authors. (Neither Irish, but one German)

[pudzy]

The massacre of 1600 defenders and civilians by Prince Rupert at Bolton is hardly ever mentioned.

This is not as bad as Drogheda of course, where casualties were twice as many, but a massacre of civilians is a massacre of civilians.

He carried out similar actions at various other locations, Birmingham and Brentford to name just two.

Rupert is generally painted as a dashing and heroic figure but look further at his actions and, by present day standards at least, he would be just as appropriately prosecuted for war crimes as Cromwell. By the accepted standards of the day he did nothing unusual.

Just having a dog doesn't excuse everything.

As we know history is selective.

[david53]

The massacre of 1600 defenders and civilians by Prince Rupert at Bolton is hardly ever mentioned.

This is not as bad as Drogheda of course, where casualties were twice as many, but a massacre of civilians is a massacre of civilians.

He carried out similar actions at various other locations, Birmingham and Brentford to name just two.

Rupert is generally painted as a dashing and heroic figure but look further at his actions and, by present day standards at least, he would be just as appropriately prosecuted for war crimes as Cromwell. By the accepted standards of the day he did nothing unusual.

Just having a dog doesn't excuse everything.

As we know history is selective.

Was Bolton carried by storm?

With History one should'nt use morals of the 21st century against actions of the 17th century.

If surrender is refused mercy is not granted for all in the town that was the rules of war.

[azrael86]

Was Bolton carried by storm?

With History one should'nt use morals of the 21st century against actions of the 17th century.

If surrender is refused mercy is not granted for all in the town that was the rules of war.

Without wanting to get political, there are already several events of the 21st C (and far more in the 20th) that were just as reprehensible as either event.

[david53]

Was Bolton carried by storm?

With History one should'nt use morals of the 21st century against actions of the 17th century.

If surrender is refused mercy is not granted for all in the town that was the rules of war.

Without wanting to get political, there are already several events of the 21st C (and far more in the 20th) that were just as reprehensible as either event.

True but as i said putting morals(held by the majority) of the 21st century on to 17th century is wrong. When at university I was told if studying a certain period try and look at their morals (ie the majority)it then makes certain actions understandable if not agreed by modern standards. I have of course said morals of the majority yes there was things done in the 20th century but on the most part they were done against the moral standards of the majority.