Oliver Cromwell

[Hamlet]

Overall, is his influence on history a good thing, or bad?

Or are the plus points and minus ones equally balanced?

 

[EdwardTking]

Oliver was a good influence. By executing an absolute monarch;
he reinforced the development of constitutional government.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

And just how did suppressing the parliment and assuming dictatorial powers, greater than the prior monarch had possessed, as soon as was possible and convenient fit into this process of furthering constitutional governement?

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
And just how did suppressing the parliment and assuming dictatorial powers, greater than the prior monarch had possessed, as soon as was possible and convenient fit into this process of furthering constitutional governement?

By showing the english that a military dictator was no better than
an absolute monarchy; the second good thing he achieved.

 

[Hamlet]

I'd agree with that. Cromwell's actions in peacetime ensured that future monarchs and politicians, as well as the people as a whole recognised the danger of extreme conservatism, the resistance of moderate reform, and revolutionary change that could result from such policies.

 

[Kafka2]

Under his auspices, the genuine reforming movements such as the Diggers were crushed. Bad, bad, bad thing.

 

[Kafka2]

On a personal level, he was a complete scumbag too. I'll bet every Irishman will back me up on that.

 

[RNolan]

A bad man who by sheer accident had (some) good consequences. Managed to uselessly agravate the problems of Ireland and ****** the growth of religous toleration though, so even in the long term he has had as many bad inffluences as good.

Yours

Ross

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Kafka2
On a personal level, he was a complete scumbag too. I'll bet every Irishman will back me up on that.

No he wasn't.

I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but many of Cromwell's Irish practises were merely standard military practise at the time - if you refuse the offer of surrender, then clemency is forfeit, etc.

As for The Diggers etc - don't make me laugh - they were even more radical and their proposals were more idiotic and idealstic than Cromwell's. Most of the things they proposed could not and would not be actually implemented succesfully for centuries, some never were at all.

 

[Pillager]

Hamlet's right on both points.

Cromwell's practices in Ireland were not particularly nice, but nor were they much (if any) worse than would have been done by anyone else in the circumstances.

As for the Diggers, I live right next to where they had their fifteen minutes of fame, and their ideas were a bit loopy.

 

[RNolan]

While Cromwell did behave much the same as others at the Sieges of Drogheda and Wexford - though here the arguement against Cromwell is that he massacared "Papists" rather than soldiers and morehowever took a sadistic glee in it - but there are other perhaps more serious actions.

*The dissolvement of the Kingdom of Ireland

The least of Cromwells crimes was the (illegal) union between Ireland and England forced through against the wishes of the Irish Parliament.

*Protestantising the towns

Major towns like Waterford and Tipperary had their Catholic populations (often the majority of the population) expelled.

*The Expropriation

Cromwell raped the Catholic nobility and gentry of Ireland. The majority of Irish landholders and the great majority of senior nobility had their lands confiscated and handed over to Cromwellian soldiers and adventurers.

"An interim survey for Wexford shows that 77% of Catholics (by 1641 figures) disappeared as landowners; the remainder got lands in Connacht, on average lesss than half their original holdings in acres, and stony Connacht acres at that." - ModernIreland 1600-1972 R.F. Foster.

It goes without saying that the effect of the settlement of tens of thousands of English planters upon a famine ridden and depressed peasant hood was traumatic to say the least...

While Cromwells actions where in part no worse than many others in Europe he was still more brutal than anyone since Mountjoy - or even Henry VIII - and some of his plans are hideously savage, amounting to basic ethnic cleansing.

Yours

Ross

 

[The Art of War]

He had a tank series named after him, that ain't bad.

 

[Archbob]

He's good, otherwise the glorius revolution would not have happened so early. Someone needed to throw down the first king, then Oliver got thrown down after 11 year and then after Charles II came, there was a glorius revolution.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by RNolan
While Cromwells actions where in part no worse than many others in Europe he was still more brutal than anyone since Mountjoy - or even Henry VIII - and some of his plans are hideously savage, amounting to basic ethnic cleansing.

Agreed.

 

[History Guy]

Cromwell, though a chap who I personally respect, though don't agree with, did nothing really to the Irish at Drogheda. There were few, if any Irishmen who died there, the same goes for Catholics. There were no women or children killed there. It was simply a continuation of the Civil War. The idea that there was a horrendous slaughter of Irish civilians first cropped up in a book by Father Murphy. In essence, it's propaganda.

 

[RNolan]

I think you missed the point there a bit History. The worst things Cromwell did in Ireland where after the Civil War. It is his 'peace' not his war that justifies at the very least questions. Drogheda had little affect on Ireland in the long run - 'Protestantising' Dublin did.

Yours

Ross

 

[Pillager]

I have to say I'm impressed: Argument about Cromwell's role in Ireland including people from Britain and the ROI, and no flaming in sight. Wish that were true in the ME discussions...