We hate him for 'massacring' the people of Drogheda. But it's history that should be on trial, according to one local study, says WILLIE DILLON. It was Drogheda's own September 11 more than three and a half centuries ago. When Oliver Cromwell led his forces through a breach in the town walls on that date in 1649, he couldn't have imagined that the blood on his sword would still be stirring deep emotions today. History has a habit of not going away, as we know to our cost in this country. It has defined and divided us. But what happens when our history is shown to be unreliable? How many of our certainties have had the inconvenient edges shorn off and the basic facts changed to suit a political viewpoint many years later? History and myth have always been close companions; indeed, one is frequently mistaken for the other. Myth is a powerful tool that has been used to shape nations. It can provide a bulwark against the complexities of life. Its simplicities make it easier for us to see others as different to ourselves and to hate them. It is the perfect example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. Objective historical fact tends to be highly complicated and hard to digest, and can often reveal things about our heroes and our enemies that we don't feel very comfortable with. Exactly what Cromwell did during his infamous three days in Drogheda has been the subject of intense debate ever since a local historian challenged the popular view in a provocative book, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy. The work was followed by a certain amount of public outrage when the author put Cromwell's death mask on display. A similar plan to put his sword on show has been scrapped after further complaints. In his book, Tom Reilly presents a radically different picture of what happened when Cromwell's army seized the town. He argues that the notorious massacre of 3,000 innocent townspeople almost certainly never took place. The popular legend is that barely a dozen local people survived. Based on his meticulous examination of evidence from the time, he concluded that no civilians were killed. Three thousand people were systematically put to the sword by Cromwell's parliamentarian forces. But these, he says, were all armed combatants, members of a royalist army that had taken the town just two months previously. The locals were mere onlookers at a battle that was in reality part of the English civil war that raged through the 1640s. Control of the town had swung between the parliamentarians and forces loyal to the ultimately beheaded King Charles I. He says Cromwell could simply have strolled into Drogheda at any time in the previous two years when his side was in occupancy. The locals appeared to have "no problem whatsoever" with Cromwell's forces and no significant incidents were recorded. The municipal records suggest life in the town continued as normal after the battle. "Thousands of Drogheda's inhabitants are documented as being alive during the 1650s." Cromwell, says Reilly, was sticking to the accepted rules of war although the killing was on a far greater scale than anything he had previously ordered. Cromwell's chief adversary in Ireland mentions no civilian deaths in hundreds of letters and reports written during the campaign. "Cromwell is nowhere on record as ever having ordered the deaths of civilians in any battle in his life," says the historian. He says no account of any civilian deaths at Drogheda appears in any report written before 1660, when the monarchy was restored. From then on, 'open season' was declared on the vanquished parliamentarians. "Everything to do with the English republic and all things Cromwellian were viciously ripped apart, torn to shreds and reinvented in order to denounce what the royalists called the despotic English republic." He says the story of the alleged massacre of civilians was subsequently adopted in the 19th century by Father Denis Murphy, a nationalist priest who used it to further the political aims of the time. That undisputed version of events ultimately found its way into the nation's school books. Reilly says his views have not been seriously challenged by other historians. Opposition to the Cromwell relics being shown in Drogheda is led by Frank Godfrey, an independent councillor who says he is backed by hundreds of local people. He vigorously disputes Reilly's version of events. He accuses the historian of having a 'fixation' with Cromwell and trying to promote 'the Cromwellian cause' in Ireland. He says Reilly is distorting and trying to rewrite history, tampering with the truth and trying to "paint a glossy picture" of what Cromwell did in Ireland. Far from being an honourable enemy, Cromwell was a bloody tyrant who slaughtered innocent people, he argues. He believes there should be a memorial to honour "the martyrs of Drogheda" at the spot where Cromwell broke through. By a curious quirk, this is on the site of Drogheda Heritage Centre, where the sword was to have gone on display. Reilly is one of its directors. Councillor Godfrey admits he can't say exactly how many local people were killed by Cromwell, but he has no doubt the figure ran into hundreds, if not thousands. "Even when we were going to school there was so much hatred of Cromwell, and it's still there to this day. Ninety-five percent of the people wouldn't want his death mask or sword coming back here. It might sound like an awful long time ago, but it's not that long ago. "If they brought Hitler's death mask to a Jewish town in Israel, how would the people feel about it? We're no different here. Feelings are running high still here in Drogheda. People have long memories, whether you like it or not." The streets of Drogheda were said to have run red with the blood of Cromwell's victims. Scarlet Street was supposedly named because of the scale of the bloodshed there. Reilly says the existing Scarlet Street would have been outside the town walls in 1649, however, some distance from the slaughter. An incident from so long ago bears no relation to today's politics, religion or economics, according to the historian. Of Godfrey he says: "He should be in the Guinness Book of Records for still holding a 353-year-old grudge." So what can we believe? John A Murphy, emeritus professor of Irish history at University College Cork, says he is loath to comment on a historical episode in which he has not been a primary investigator. But he says few historical personalities have made such a deep impact on Irish tradition as Cromwell; therefore he can understand the strong reaction. But he 'applauds' Reilly for contributing to the debate. "It's a legitimate area for discussion. It shows how deep-rooted our prejudices are that people go ape when they are told that maybe Cromwell wasn't as bad as he was made out to be." Professor Murphy says we shouldn't believe something because we learnt it at school. Much of the history the present generation of Irish adults was given was "palpably untrue", he says. "What they were taught, I'd say up to 20 or 30 years ago, was propaganda." He says things have improved vastly since then, as the curriculum has shifted from "arid political nationalism and rancorous generalisations about the past" to a more fruitful and enriching view of ourselves. This would seem to tally with James Joyce's definition of history as "a nightmare from which we are trying to awaken". Not so, says Professor Murphy. "That's a famous quotation in a literary context. But it has always seemed to me to smack of smart-assery. It's one of these nice phrases which you coin irrespective of whether they mean anything or not." He believes a more relevant quote is one from Michael Oakshot, an English philosopher: "History is what the evidence compels us to believe." Cromwell's sword currently resides at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds. Some people in Drogheda hope it will be compelled to remain there for a long time to come. - Willie Dillon