Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Thoughts on this leader, whose controversial legacy still reverberates throughout the British Isles?

[MyLifeIsYours]

Despicable.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Calvinist= Massive HP

[Mexican Wolf]

FF for his republicanism, HP for his horrible treatment of the Irish people and the Irish wolves.

[Big Abraham]

Robespierre and Bonaparte rolled into one.

[Lumine]

Even if you could somehow separate the man from his acts in Ireland, he'd still be one massive HP.

[All Along The Watchtower]

FF (left-wing)

[HisGrace]

Don't feel the least bit sorry for Charles I but became as bad or worse of a tyrant on his own. Same story as the French and Russian revolutions.

[President Johnson]

HP on balance

I always confuse him with James Cromwell (the actor).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Not a man of his time, as the popularity of comparisons to revolutionary dictators from centuries later demonstrates.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not a man of his time, as the popularity of comparisons to revolutionary dictators from centuries later demonstrates.

Al called Cromwell a Modernist iirc. The label fits.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Irish Catholic background so should give a hint of my feelings for the bastard

[Sumner 1868]

Complex figure. There is a bleak side of his legacy, but ultimately he was an important part of the development of liberalism. Voted FF.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My hero. I have a bust of him in my office at work and a portrait of him hanging in my home.

[Obama24]

Irish Catholic. He was a butcher, and much worse a man than the Stuarts he deposed. I hope if there is a hell he is roasting.

[Dr. Cynic]

As a Leveller sympathizer, I'm with him as a Parliamentarian, but that's about it.

[Lechasseur]

Massive HP

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The father of English-speaking liberalism (and so, ultimately, the grandfather or at least great-grandfather of later English speaking polities...) whether you like it or not, and a very complex figure, more so than allowed for by the various pseudo-historical myths that have grown up around him. Something I posted a few years ago that works as a useful point of reference, I hope:

Cromwell is an endlessly fascinating figure because he really is an example of a man who seems to have been born out of his time. That is to say that he was every bit as aware of all the contradictions in his life and career as we are and worried about them constantly. The 17th century was, to put it mildly, not one much characterised by either doubt or anxiety, and yet here we have this extraordinary man who was as much a worrier as a warrior. That this did not actually act as a break on his ability to act decisively and brutally when required also feels out of time. What he actually believed in politically - and was prepared, after careful consideration on a case-by-case basis, to shed considerable blood for - was curiously modern as well: a calm and peaceful society in which everyone was free to do as they pleased so long as they minded their own business. He never got that, of course.

He is also an interesting figure as alongside the historical Cromwell there are numerous pseudo-historical Cromwells, all in endless conflict. There is the Tory Cromwell who murdered the poor innocent King, banned all Fun in Merrie England and ruled with a fist of iron. There is the Whig Cromwell who bravely laid the ground for the establishment of the Glorious Revolution and the revival of Ancient English Liberties. There is the Irish Cromwell who personally presided over genocide and may very well have eaten dead babies. There is also the Radical Cromwell (who cruelly Betrayed the great Promise of the Revolution and sold out to the gentry) and a few others beside. None are particularly accurate and all share a tendency to ascribe wider phenomenon to the agency and actions of one man. Some are very old: 'Tory Cromwell' is a literal Restoration creation and the 'Whig Cromwell' isn't much younger. But if we wish to discuss Cromwell seriously then we have to look beyond them, to find the historical Cromwell instead. Not that this is particularly hard: he is a Leviathan.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Always worth noting that James I began the plantations of Ulster.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Imagine advocating for executing the King and establishing a republic instead. Cringe.

The only positive thing he did was he (informally) reversed the Edict of Expulsion.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

FF (left-wing)

This but he shouldn’t have put down the Levellers, overall though certainly a force for good.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The father of English-speaking liberalism (and so, ultimately, the grandfather or at least great-grandfather of later English speaking polities...) whether you like it or not, and a very complex figure, more so than allowed for by the various pseudo-historical myths that have grown up around him

The Virgin "the beginning of left-right politics was in 1789" vs. the Chad "the beginning of left-right politics was in 1642."

[Wiswylfen]

FF! The greatest Englishman post-1066.

The father of English-speaking liberalism (and so, ultimately, the grandfather or at least great-grandfather of later English speaking polities...) whether you like it or not, and a very complex figure, more so than allowed for by the various pseudo-historical myths that have grown up around him. Something I posted a few years ago that works as a useful point of reference, I hope:

Cromwell is an endlessly fascinating figure because he really is an example of a man who seems to have been born out of his time. That is to say that he was every bit as aware of all the contradictions in his life and career as we are and worried about them constantly. The 17th century was, to put it mildly, not one much characterised by either doubt or anxiety, and yet here we have this extraordinary man who was as much a worrier as a warrior. That this did not actually act as a break on his ability to act decisively and brutally when required also feels out of time. What he actually believed in politically - and was prepared, after careful consideration on a case-by-case basis, to shed considerable blood for - was curiously modern as well: a calm and peaceful society in which everyone was free to do as they pleased so long as they minded their own business. He never got that, of course.

He is also an interesting figure as alongside the historical Cromwell there are numerous pseudo-historical Cromwells, all in endless conflict. There is the Tory Cromwell who murdered the poor innocent King, banned all Fun in Merrie England and ruled with a fist of iron. There is the Whig Cromwell who bravely laid the ground for the establishment of the Glorious Revolution and the revival of Ancient English Liberties. There is the Irish Cromwell who personally presided over genocide and may very well have eaten dead babies. There is also the Radical Cromwell (who cruelly Betrayed the great Promise of the Revolution and sold out to the gentry) and a few others beside. None are particularly accurate and all share a tendency to ascribe wider phenomenon to the agency and actions of one man. Some are very old: 'Tory Cromwell' is a literal Restoration creation and the 'Whig Cromwell' isn't much younger. But if we wish to discuss Cromwell seriously then we have to look beyond them, to find the historical Cromwell instead. Not that this is particularly hard: he is a Leviathan.

Wasn't the Whig Cromwell the Cromwell who stabbed the cause in the back out of his own greed for power? My understanding is that 'Cromwell :)' was a sentiment restricted to Dissenters—aside from a certain extremist "Wow, he was a tyrant who killed the king? Great!"—until the 19th century.