Oliver Cromwell

[Quackers]

fudge monarchs lets get cromwell in lads!

 

[LightSpectra]

Tyrants responsible for genocide aren't good leaders or rulers by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Quackers]

Tyrants responsible for genocide aren't good leaders or rulers by any stretch of the imagination.

you can define him by the so-called genocide which is something irish nationalists play up it is a load of nonsense. the 30 years war was far more devestating germany doesn't care!

he defended protestant england from the evil pope, invented the new model army which was based on a MERIT system and not a patronage one. He owned spain in one battle too remmeber.

like it or not he kept england free

 

[LightSpectra]

So murdering people en masse based on their ethnicity isn't genocide?

 

[Quackers]

So murdering people en masse based on their ethnicity isn't genocide?

Well for a start I'm unsure how different Irish folk are to the rest of British Isles. For instance Anglo-Saxon wipe out theory is a joke its nonsese.

So they are killing there own people? LOL don't make sense then does it?

Also killing a few civilians was nothing to the destruction reeked by WW1 and the 30 years war was that genocide?

 

[LightSpectra]

Well for a start I'm unsure how different Irish folk are to the rest of British Isles.

Different enough that one is able to distinguish between "Irish" and "non-Irish Britannic." Thus, different enough that it is possible for an Englishman to commit genocide against the Irish.

So they are killing there own people? LOL don't make sense then does it?

Yes, it doesn't make much sense. Why Cromwell would do something so evil and nonsensical is beyond my comprehension, but nevertheless makes him a terrible leader.

Also killing a few civilians was nothing to the destruction reeked by WW1 and the 30 years war was that genocide?

Uh, alright? What's your point? Does this therefore mean that genocides or other crimes against humanity are always OK so long as they're less murderous than some other mass murder in history?

 

[Quackers]

Different enough that one is able to distinguish between "Irish" and "non-Irish Britannic." Thus, different enough that it is possible for an Englishman to commit genocide against the Irish.

Hang on first it's about ethnicty now about nationality? OMG I thought historians were more consistent they don't change goal posts

Yes, it doesn't make much sense. Why Cromwell would do something so evil and nonsensical is beyond my comprehension, but nevertheless makes him a terrible leader.

His methods were not unique to the continent and to the attiudes at the time therefore to expect Cromwell different standards compared to other European military commanders at the time is anti-historical. Terrible leader I think now he saved England from depsotism and remmeber the Battle of Worcester.

Uh, alright? What's your point? Does this therefore mean that genocides or other crimes against humanity are always OK so long as they're less murderous than some other mass murder in history?

No what i'm getting at is that Cromwell is notorious whilst other people who have been equally bad and even worse get off lightly. This is against history!

 

[LightSpectra]

Hang on first it's about ethnicty now about nationality? OMG I thought historians were more consistent they don't change goal posts

Considering the Irish were part of the Kingdom of England at this point, it is about ethnicity. Even if it weren't, you still missed the point completely. Genocide is possible if you're able to distinguish between two different peoples, which you can.

His methods were not unique to the continent and to the attiudes at the time therefore to expect Cromwell different standards compared to other European military commanders at the time is anti-historical.

Citation needed.

No what i'm getting at is that Cromwell is notorious whilst other people who have been equally bad and even worse get off lightly. This is against history!

Who do you suppose gets off with intentionally murdering civilians out of personal malice?

 

[Quackers]

Considering the Irish were part of the Kingdom of England at this point, it is about ethnicity. Even if it weren't, you still missed the point completely. Genocide is possible if you're able to distinguish between two different peoples, which you can

Genocide did not happen. It was a lie. In fact many other guys did this in contintentla Europe at the time. Your denying it because of silly Irish-American romantic nationalism. Grow up and remember 9/11 was a slow motion attack over 30 years for Britain during the troubles.

Citation needed.

Really? Do I have too? Your a distinguised historian on this forum you know it already without sily sources.

Who do you suppose gets off with intentionally murdering civilians out of personal malice?

It's stupid tp judge Cromwell by 21st century standards.

 

[LightSpectra]

Genocide did not happen. It was a lie. In fact many other guys did this in contintentla Europe at the time. Your denying it because of silly Irish-American romantic nationalism. Grow up and remember 9/11 was a slow motion attack over 30 years for Britain during the troubles.

So you argue a point, until you realize your position is indefensible, and then you just attempt to offend me to get out of demonstrating your position?

Really? Do I have too? Your a distinguised historian on this forum you know it already without sily sources.

Anything outside of American history and medieval European history, I honestly can't tell you much about. Nevertheless, Cromwell's reputation would indeed be unjust if it were the case that his methods were indistinguishable from his contemporaries, so I'd appreciate it if you prove it as such.

It's stupid tp judge Cromwell by 21st century standards.

The 21st century standard, that it's wrong to murder innocent civilians out of pure malice, is derived from a moral standard that's been present in every era of European history since the at least the 4th century. I don't think I'm being unfair to Cromwell in this case.

 

[Quackers]

So you argue a point, until you realize your position is indefensible, and then you just attempt to offend me to get out of demonstrating your position?

Umm no? It really wasn't a genocide? And I was attacking your misplaced motives and you seem to have unadressed them therefore they are justified.

Anything outside of American history and medieval European history, I honestly can't tell you much about. Nevertheless, Cromwell's reputation would indeed be unjust if it were the case that his methods were indistinguishable from his contemporaries, so I'd appreciate it if you prove it as such.

Like I've mentioned thoughout this discussion the 30 years war.One of the most destructive in European history!

The 21st century standard, that it's wrong to murder innocent civilians out of pure malice, is derived from a moral standard that's been present in every era of European history since the at least the 4th century. I don't think I'm being unfair to Cromwell in this case.

Oh c'mon that is rubbish. The genevea convention wasn't signed up too in the 6th century! lol

 

[Karalysia]

Meh only worthwhile fellow in England at this time was Winstanely and the True Levelers.

 

[Quackers]

Meh only worthwhile fellow in England at this time was Winstanely and the True Levelers.

Well I guess thte Communist perspective is lacking in most of English history and only a few people can be thought of. DW Kara for me Communists are as bad as NAZI'S same totalitarian controlling government doesn't appeal to me a freedom loving patroit who loves his country over the internation prolateriet

 

[LightSpectra]

Umm no? It really wasn't a genocide? And I was attacking your misplaced motives and you seem to have unadressed them therefore they are justified.

The motive to making an argument is not proof against the argument; otherwise I could just easily say that you're only taking the contrary position because you're an Anglophile.

Saying "it was not a genocide" is not proof that it was not a genocide. You need like, y'know, substance.

Like I've mentioned thoughout this discussion the 30 years war.One of the most destructive in European history!

Okay, and that demonstrates what, exactly? Intentionally murdering innocent civilians for no reason but their ethnicity is comparable to battle tactics during an era of destructive warfare?

Oh c'mon that is rubbish. The genevea convention wasn't signed up too in the 6th century! lol

So the notion that one shouldn't kill innocent civilians wasn't codified until Geneva?

I think there can be quite a convincing case made for William III and the signing of the Bill of Rights which laid the foundations for rights a priveledges which are enjoyed by both the public and the judiciary today and was quite different to anywhere on the continent (might be wrong on this point).

Accepting a constitution was a prerequisite to becoming king. I wouldn't say that this is a point in favor of William III. Couldn't tell you much more about Billy, except that he was unsuccessful in his wars against France.

 

[Quackers]

The motive to making an argument is not proof against the argument; otherwise I could just easily say that you're only taking the contrary position because you're an Anglophile.

Saying "it was not a genocide" is not proof that it was not a genocide. You need like, y'know, substance.



Okay, and that demonstrates what, exactly? Intentionally murdering innocent civilians for no reason but their ethnicity is comparable to battle tactics during an era of destructive warfare?

LOL so when the English kill some Irish civilians it's genocide and evil and murderous and they should be signing up the geneva convention but when it happens more severely and more throughly on the continent it is just "battle tactics during an era of destructive warfare" you can easily apply that monikor to our war.

So the notion that one shouldn't kill innocent civilians wasn't codified until Geneva?

There is probably some agreement between states about the certain rules of warfare at the time but the Geneva was the first worldwide binding rules of war and so the only one worth mentioning.

 

[RedRalph]

Quackers, what's your opinion on Cromwell banning Xmas?

 

[Quackers]

Quackers, what's your opinion on Cromwell banning Xmas?

That is NUTTY I say

I love christmas

 

[RedRalph]

That is NUTTY I say

I love christmas

What exactly do you like about him so much?

P.S. there's a spelling mistake in your sig

 

[BCLG100]

Edit- my post got hit in the split

 

[Oruc]

Nope!