Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[A18]

Discuss.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Neither. Hero and Villian is hardly much improvement over "Freedom Fighter" or "Horrible person".

Though many of the stories of 'massarces' being committed in Ireland are simply fabrications or exaggerations. Not that rulers of the Royalist estate owners which ruled alot of 16th Century Ireland were hugely appealing or wonderful...

Better than Charles I of course. But how hard is that?

EDIT: Actually there seems to be some circumstanial evidence that at least one side (if not both sides) of my personal family had their origins in settling in Ireland in being soldiers in the Cromwellian army... so for that reason, I lean hero.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though flawed in some ways, definately a hero.

[Јas]

"We have seen the many ties which at one time or another have joined the inhabitants of the Western islands, and even in Ireland itself offered a tolerable way of life to Protestants and Catholics alike. Upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. "Hell or Connaught" were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred "The Curse or Cromwell on you." The consequences of Cromwell's rule in Ireland have distressed and at times distracted English politics down even to the present day. To heal them baffled the skill and loyalties of successive generations. They became for a time a potent obstacle to the harmony of the English-speaking people through-out the world. Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'."
Churchill

Villain is quite the understatement...

[The Dowager Mod]

Villain.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"We have seen the many ties which at one time or another have joined the inhabitants of the Western islands, and even in Ireland itself offered a tolerable way of life to Protestants and Catholics alike. Upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. "Hell or Connaught" were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred "The Curse or Cromwell on you." The consequences of Cromwell's rule in Ireland have distressed and at times distracted English politics down even to the present day. To heal them baffled the skill and loyalties of successive generations. They became for a time a potent obstacle to the harmony of the English-speaking people through-out the world. Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'."
Churchill

Villain is quite the understatement...

Alot of that is a 19th Century nationalist semi-fabricated (only semi-fabricated, mind you) hogwash made up by our great patriots to fit into the "great national struggle of the MONE people (Most Oppresed Nation on Earth) against British Imperialism, blah, blah, blah"..

Yes Cromwall did commit plently of massarces of course, though never on scale of our invented histories. The actual historical states that generally only the garrison were killed in the towns captured - after they surrendered while fighting having turned down an offer to do so at the start of the siege, which were the normal rules of war at the time (not that I justify THAT mind you). The massarce of Drogheda, et al being somewhat of a myth.

Of course there was the radical (well not that radical really; not after the Ulster Plantation) distrubtion of the land towards the Protestant landlords, many of which would keep their estates until the Parnell era and yes they were bad things and evil for the country (I have Michael Davitt in my sig; so that should tell you my opinion on them ffs.) but in reality for the majority of Irish people just replaced one repressor with the other - Cromwell had pretty much destroyed the Norman-Catholic aristocracy which was why he such got bad rep here, but our "more Irish than Irish ourselves" aristocrats were just as good at oppresing Irish people as a matter of fact; and were often diehardly conservative and supported the Medevilist Catholic church - then the enemy of all knowledge and enlightment (sorry Catholics, but it's true) and certainly never have warmed to the whole "parliament" idea.

But if it's Irish oppressing Irish (Most of Irish history tells this story until Queen Elizabeth I) it's perfectly okay and understandable, but if it's English oppressing Irish then...

[Storebought]

Cromwell granted religious toleration to all Protestants and Jews. Quakers and Catholics had the right to worship privately, but could not proselytize.

I would say "hero", but what does all of this matter to me? The only connection I have to Ireland/England my surname.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Cromwell granted religious toleration to all Protestants and Jews. Quakers and Catholics had the right to worship privately, but could not proselytize.

I would say "hero", but what does all of this matter to me? The only connection I have to Ireland/England my surname.

For once and for all denying the divine right of kings?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Though flawed in some ways, definately a hero.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Marginal hero, but I view the fact that he considered himself to be the indispensable man to be a greater flaw than his Irish policy.

[??????????]

POS

[opebo]

Better than Charles I of course. But how hard is that?

What was so bad about Charles I?

[afleitch]

Cromwell granted religious toleration to all Protestants and Jews. Quakers and Catholics had the right to worship privately, but could not proselytize.

Catholics were denied the right to move more than 5 miles outside their home without special permission, even if they were sick, visiting the market etc. Cromwell was military astute, but when it came to government he was pretty poor, dismissing the Rump because of fears they might have elections that would return an anti-Commonwealth, or Cromwellian majority. Neither could he rule with the army, so he decided to self impose a protectorate and dictatorship.

His followers also had no right to execute a foreign king. Okay, self preserving Scottish nobles and soldiers handed him over but 'axing' the second Scottish monarch in 100 years was a bit much....

Lean villain

[minionofmidas]

What Al said. I can see why an Irishman or Scot, or an idiot forcefed 18th and 19th century conservative historians' tripe, might disagree, though.

[Јas]

Alot of that is a 19th Century nationalist semi-fabricated (only semi-fabricated, mind you) hogwash made up by our great patriots to fit into the "great national struggle of the MONE people (Most Oppresed Nation on Earth) against British Imperialism, blah, blah, blah"..

Yes Cromwall did commit plently of massarces of course, though never on scale of our invented histories. The actual historical states that generally only the garrison were killed in the towns captured - after they surrendered while fighting having turned down an offer to do so at the start of the siege, which were the normal rules of war at the time (not that I justify THAT mind you). The massarce of Drogheda, et al being somewhat of a myth.

I don't think the argument that yes there were 'massacres', but they weren't really all that bad, plays all that well...

I can't think of any people who committed or orchestrated any massacre, whom I would classify as a 'hero'.

Of course there was the radical (well not that radical really; not after the Ulster Plantation) distrubtion of the land towards the Protestant landlords, many of which would keep their estates until the Parnell era and yes they were bad things and evil for the country (I have Michael Davitt in my sig; so that should tell you my opinion on them ffs.) but in reality for the majority of Irish people just replaced one repressor with the other - Cromwell had pretty much destroyed the Norman-Catholic aristocracy which was why he such got bad rep here, but our "more Irish than Irish ourselves" aristocrats were just as good at oppresing Irish people as a matter of fact; and were often diehardly conservative and supported the Medevilist Catholic church - then the enemy of all knowledge and enlightment (sorry Catholics, but it's true) and certainly never have warmed to the whole "parliament" idea.

Again, the he wasn't that bad argument doesn't sell me here either.
The Cromwellian plantation was not a good thing, IMO. Catholic ownership of land here fell around 90%. Significant sections of the population were forced to leave their land to move to the most unproductive lands in the country.

The Act of Settlement also is not something I would want a 'hero' to bring about.
Whereas the Parliament of England, after the expense of much blood and treasure for suppression of the horrid rebellion in Ireland, have by the good hand of God upon their undertakings, brought that affair to such an issue, as that a total reducement and settlement of that nation may, with God's blessing, be speedily effected...

Even if one believes he was only replacing one set of oppressors with another, then the requirements to meet the status of 'hero' have really slipped.

[bergie72]

THE MOST INTERESTING THING ABOUT KING CHARLES I IS THAT HE WAS 5'6" TALL AT THE START OF HIS REIGN, BUT ONLY 4'8" TALL AT THE END OF IT...
BECAUSE OF...
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
PURITAN
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
SEPTEMBER
Was at first
ONLY
MP for Huntingdon
BUT THEN
He led the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won.
Then he founded the New Model Army
And praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naseby
And the King fled up North like a bat to the Scots...

Sorry -- I couldn't resist injecting a little Python humor into the discussion  :-)

[J. J.]

I grew up Presbyterian and converted to the Episcopal Church.  Need I say more?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Villian.

[AkSaber]

Villain.

[Colin]

I have to agree with what afleitch said. While he helped to destroy the theory of devine right in the English monarchy he was also, in my opinion, one of the first modern dictators and tyrants.

Also I must admit that while I'm not religious in any way I do have family to consider. As English Catholics who fought for the Royalists in the Civil War I have a bit of a historical obligation to call him a villain.

[Democratic Hawk]

Villain. Embodied encroaching bourgeois interests over the paternalistic benevolence of the King. I'd loved to have partaken in his postumous execution. Not to mention allowing that abomination Matthew Hopkins and his witch-hunts

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Charles I's power trip had to end... but that was a slightly over-the-top conclusion to come to. He did help create the modern idea of Britain - but in the end, his Irish adventure, which was driven by this puritanism (who regarded the Irish catholics as just below dogs), did him in. He was filled with the same misplaced messiah complex as was his predecessor.

Should be sent down the historical river for given the Puritans any kind of foothold anywhere.

[TeePee4Prez]

I have to agree with what afleitch said. While he helped to destroy the theory of devine right in the English monarchy he was also, in my opinion, one of the first modern dictators and tyrants.

Also I must admit that while I'm not religious in any way I do have family to consider. As English Catholics who fought for the Royalists in the Civil War I have a bit of a historical obligation to call him a villain.

We do agree on something.  I never thought of Cromwell destroying the concept of "divine right".  I still have to say he's on the same vein as Hitler despite that.  Being an Irish Catholic (name only, I know) descending mostly from Potato Famine immigrants, which I put most of the blame on Cromwell, I wonder what Ireland have been like if the English never bothered with it.  Would the Catholic Church's sometimes feudal policies be just as bad as the English?  See pre-Revolution France so there is a distinct possibility.   

Another point I should mention is the Quakers did a hell of a lot more to alleviate the Potato Famine than the Vatican did giving only token support.  Ever see an Irish pope?  Nope! (No pun intended)  Sad considering we've suffered the most for a Church that didn't even bother to rally Spain, Portugal, France, Austria,  Italian City States, etc. to Ireland's defense during the mid 1800s.  I still think the above powers combined would have at least make the British leave Ireland.         

I know some hardcore Catholics have and will give me a lot of sh**t for what I just said, but it's something to think about.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I have to agree with what afleitch said. While he helped to destroy the theory of devine right in the English monarchy he was also, in my opinion, one of the first modern dictators and tyrants.

Also I must admit that while I'm not religious in any way I do have family to consider. As English Catholics who fought for the Royalists in the Civil War I have a bit of a historical obligation to call him a villain.

We do agree on something.  I never thought of Cromwell destroying the concept of "divine right".  I still have to say he's on the same vein as Hitler despite that.  Being an Irish Catholic (name only, I know) descending mostly from Potato Famine immigrants, which I put most of the blame on Cromwell, I wonder what Ireland have been like if the English never bothered with it.  Would the Catholic Church's sometimes feudal policies be just as bad as the English?  See pre-Revolution France so there is a distinct possibility.   

Another point I should mention is the Quakers did a hell of a lot more to alleviate the Potato Famine than the Vatican did giving only token support.  Ever see an Irish pope?  Nope! (No pun intended)  Sad considering we've suffered the most for a Church that didn't even bother to rally Spain, Portugal, France, Austria,  Italian City States, etc. to Ireland's defense during the mid 1800s.  I still think the above powers combined would have at least make the British leave Ireland.         

I know some hardcore Catholics have and will give me a lot of sh**t for what I just said, but it's something to think about.

Ooohh.. You've really found the untouched minefield there. I'll get back to that in a minute.

@Jas: Of course there were many negative things about Cromwell's reign, his authoritian puritianism especially towards Catholics, his decision in the end to hand over the commonwealth to his son (though that was soon recinded), the growth of charlatanism thanks to politics towards Witchcraft (Until Hawk brought it up, I forgot that Hopkins was during "the commonwealth".) and of course his Irish policies (Though I've play them into the context of the time - they were then 'played' by what were considered then to be the normal rules of war - thus my point about the Drogheda massacre - not that I justify that in the slightest). My main point was to rebutt the typical nationalist verbatim which follows any discussion about Cromwell's Ireland policies forgetting some of the more positive impact of reign.

Cromwell to me is a figure is too far distant in time to really pass any true moral judgement, he should perhaps be seen somewhat in the same light as say, The Emperor Augustus or even, Elizabeth I, people of dubious morals who in the end led to some positive results (if intentional or not).

[Јas]

@Jas: Of course there were many negative things about Cromwell's reign, his authoritian puritianism especially towards Catholics, his decision in the end to hand over the commonwealth to his son (though that was soon recinded), the growth of charlatanism thanks to politics towards Witchcraft (Until Hawk brought it up, I forgot that Hopkins was during "the commonwealth".) and of course his Irish policies (Though I've play them into the context of the time - they were then 'played' by what were considered then to be the normal rules of war - thus my point about the Drogheda massacre - not that I justify that in the slightest). My main point was to rebutt the typical nationalist verbatim which follows any discussion about Cromwell's Ireland policies forgetting some of the more positive impact of reign.

Cromwell to me is a figure is too far distant in time to really pass any true moral judgement, he should perhaps be seen somewhat in the same light as say, The Emperor Augustus or even, Elizabeth I, people of dubious morals who in the end led to some positive results (if intentional or not).

I actually don't really contest much of that at all.
But even judging him in the context of this time, I just think he did far more damage than good - hence 'villain' and not 'hero'.