Most infamous ...

[Traitorfish]

While the Irish may not have supported the Royalists

Yes they did. The Irish Confederacy allied itself with the Royalist faction, turning over command of it's troops to English Royalist commanders. That was, in fact, one of the reason's for Cromwell's invasion in the first place. What I meant was that later Irish Republicanism continued to demonise Cromwell, despite the fact that he was a republican and the Irish forces of the time where wholeheartedly monarchist, which seems somewhat contradictory to me.

...the Royalists likely had a good propaganda machine (once again, make Cromwell look really bad to make yourself look better so people don't hate you quite so much), and the government wouldn't mind if the Irish were insulting Cromwell, but if a organized group was posting things against the King, it may not end happily. As throughout history Cromwell wasn't a threat, the Kings were.

This is certainly a fair point. It would indeed be wholly different thing to curse the memory of an officially condmened regicide than the monarchy.

Perhaps at the time they thought Cromwell should be sympathetic to them and viewed him as betraying them by not being supportive? That may create some bad views.

Not particularly likely, no. The Irish forces at the time were, unlikely their much later incarnations, overwhemingly very reactionary, dominated by a staunchly monarchist artistocracy. They fought to defend and reinstate the Stuarts as King of England, Ireland and Scotland, not to create an independent, let alone republican Ireland.

I suppose that the loathing of Cromwell must have survived the transition from Catholic monarchism to nationalist republicanism among Irish rebels, perhaps, as you suggest, because of its more widely accepted, officially endorsed nature. By the time Republicanism had emerged, he had already become enshrined in Irish culture as something approaching the anti-Christ. Certainly, Cromwell is one of the most despised men in English history, with even those sympathetic to him often shying away from public expressions of sympathy.
Which is a pity, really. For all his pride and ruthlessness, he was, at heart, a decent man. He just didn't know when to let go of power...

 

[say1988]

What I meant was that later Irish Republicanism continued to demonise Cromwell, despite the fact that he was a republican and the Irish forces of the time where wholeheartedly monarchist, which seems somewhat contradictory to me.

That is actually what I meant, just very poorly worded.

Not particularly likely, no.

I am the first to admit I don't know many particulars about the subject, so I am just throwing the idea out there. Most of my thoughts are just based on logic, and that was a possibility, I really don't know what the average Irishman thought then or now.

 

[Junuxx]

IIRC, Alexander is even mentioned in the Koran, and is presented as a monotheist. I'm not sure of the history behind that, but I suppose it probably follows a similar logic to the western concept of the "virtuous pagan".

Ah, you're referring to Dhul-Qarnayn. It's unclear who this Quranic figure really refers to. Perhaps it's Alexander, but it might just as well be Cyrus.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, you're referring to Dhul-Qarnayn. It's unclear who this Quranic figure really refers to. Perhaps it's Alexander, but it might just as well be Cyrus.

Hm, interesting. Well, either way, it reflects the fact that Alexander is a respected figure among at least some Middle-Easterners, if not necessarilly Irananian ones...
I wonder if, perhaps, the Alexander/Cyrus debate is in any way tied to cultural identity? The article mentions that Cyrus as Dhul-Qarnayn is particularly favoured by Iranian scholars, so perhaps Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn is favoured by those scholars from nations with a more strongly Hellenic past, such as Egypt or Turkey?

 

[Masada]

I wonder if, perhaps, the Alexander/Cyrus debate is in any way tied to cultural identity? The article mentions that Cyrus as Dhul-Qarnayn is particularly favoured by Iranian scholars, so perhaps Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn is favoured by those scholars from nations with a more strongly Hellenic past, such as Egypt or Turkey?

I instinctively made a Sunni connection Cyrus = Persian = Shiite donkeys. Better a Greek Alexander than a 'Persian' or 'Shiite' Cyrus.

 

[Junuxx]

I instinctively made a Sunni connection Cyrus = Persian = Shiite donkeys. Better a Greek Alexander than a 'Persian' or 'Shiite' Cyrus.

On the other hand, Cyrus = Persian = Zoroastrian = Monotheist (= Good), while Alexander = Greek = Polytheist = Idolatrist (= Bad).

 

[Masada]

On the other hand, Cyrus = Persian = Zoroastrian = Monotheist (= Good), while Alexander = Greek = Polytheist = Idolatrist (= Bad).

That's what a Shiite would say you know the whole Cyrus = Persian = Zoroastrian = Shiite link is fairly obvious considering the proclivities of the current and past Iranian regimes.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the other hand, Cyrus = Persian = Zoroastrian = Monotheist (= Good), while Alexander = Greek = Polytheist = Idolatrist (= Bad).

Well, I've heard the argument that Alexander = Hellenistic Greek = Aristotlean = Monotheist (Kinda) = Good. This is most likely stretching things a bit, but, then, people are very, very good at rationalising things like that, especially for the sake of a political, relgious or nationalistic cause. It was certainly used by Christians to defend him as a "virtuous pagan".

 

[Junuxx]

I suppose one could find arguments to claim he was actually a Buddhist or a Mormon if you try hard enough.

 

[Traitorfish]

I doubt those Muslim scholars attempting to associate him with Dhul-Qarnayn would want to, though, which was my point. There is a certain logic to describing Alexander the Great as a monotheist, albeit questionable.

 

[RedRalph]

Am I seriously the only one who thinks Napoleon would make this list?

 

[say1988]

While he is very famous, I wouldn't count him as infamous, in Canada at least.

 

[Dachs]

Am I seriously the only one who thinks Napoleon would make this list?

I do, too.

 

[North King]

People who adore Nappy are never regarded as insane, unlike those who adore, say, Hitler.

 

[REDY]

only addons:

Hernan Cortes
Vlad The Impaler
Elisabeth Bathory
Ivan the Terrible
Jack the Ripper
M? Robespierre
Idi Amin
Osama ben Laden

 

[LightSpectra]

While not grievously evil, Nicholas II is infamous for being one of the most incompetent leaders in world history. It's almost as if he had a checklist of bad ideas that he made sure to go through.

 

[vogtmurr]

Napoleon isn't in the same league as Torrequemada

 

[Masada]

Napoleon I was French and that's enough for me. Napoleon III was German and that's enough for me.

 

[Dachs]

Napoleon I was French and that's enough for me. Napoleon III was German and that's enough for me.

I think it was Seaman who said that Louis-Napoleon reminded him of a shady Italian waiter recently dismissed from service in a fourth-rate hotel...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

While not grievously evil, Nicholas II is infamous for being one of the most incompetent leaders in world history. It's almost as if he had a checklist of bad ideas that he made sure to go through.

It didn't help that his overbearing wife was on the German payroll, and he did pretty much whatever she told him to.