Oliver Cromwell
- Thread starter Quackers
- Start date
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Cromwell didn't save England from despotism; he was, by any stretch of the word, a despot himself.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I don't care what you call it, murdering 2/3 of the island's inhabitants simply because you don't like them is wrong.
He also did a good job of royally misunderstanding the Caroline Infantry system.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
As is nerve-gassing the space-bees just to get their honey, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe we just discuss what actually occurred, rather than resulting to mistruths and hyperbole?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Am I the only one who finds it funny that Quackers own defense seems to imply that Cromwell inflicted as much suffering in 6 months as the Germans suffered over the course of 30 years, in their most devestating war ever?
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Word.
I think the debate over Cromwell's role in Ireland is rather interesting. Clearly, it revolves around the few thousand killed in Drogheda and Wexford. The former involves a fortified town which refused to accede to Cromwell's terms. The consequent lack of quarter is hardly aberrant, especially given that his orders were to spare no quarter to those under arms. We should also view this engagement in light of him fully honouring terms when a town surrendered (for example Kilkenny) and that massacre wasn't really his habit; he didn't do it in Limerick, Galway etcetera. Towns which offered firm resistance. Indeed his justification for not offering quarter was that it would reduce fighting overall by making surrender morel ikely. This would save lives. That's a rather hard decision to make but hardly the stuff of evil.
In Wexford we have a slightly different situation here it seems that Cromwell simply lost control of his troops. They cause so much damage they made the port unusable; I doubt that was his intention. One could argue losing control was his fault (and perhaps intention) but the evidence for such is very sketchy; by doing so we're hardly 'presuming innocence'.
Fundamentally I think the hate directed towards Cromwell (in Ireland) is far in excess of that justified by the historical reputation. He seems to have become a scapegoat for general anti-imperialist anger and this isn't necessarily justified by his actions.
Eh. The damage done to the German states as a whole during the Thirty Years' War is often overstated. World War II by virtually every measure was worse for the entire country. A couple of places, such as Pomerania, Lorraine, and southern Bavaria, were worse off for stretches of the Thirty Years' War, but that's about it...
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Okay, yeah I overstated it, but the point being one is the Thirty years war, while Cromwell was in Ireland for 6 months.
That's true. I dunno enough about Irish history or Cromwell to say whether he really was that bad, though. You, on the other hand, do...
I imagine it's somewhat similar to what Louis XIV's armies did to the Palatinate a few decades later. It was probably worse than any one-time event that happened in the Thirty Years' War, save perhaps Magdeburg, happened within the space of a few months, and served as a catalyst for proto-nationalism.
I imagine it's somewhat similar to what Louis XIV's armies did to the Palatinate a few decades later. It was probably worse than any one-time event that happened in the Thirty Years' War, save perhaps Magdeburg, happened within the space of a few months, and served as a catalyst for proto-nationalism.
Quackers
The Frog
Awwwww Dachs I saw ur name and i wanted an essay, pls 
Oliver Cromwell revolutioned our political system by telling the monarch that he is not infalliable and that he is accountable for his actions by parliament and the People. Without Cromwell what hope is there for the production of the great US constituitoin?
Oliver Cromwell revolutioned our political system by telling the monarch that he is not infalliable and that he is accountable for his actions by parliament and the People. Without Cromwell what hope is there for the production of the great US constituitoin?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Ugh. It's stuff like this why I'm retreating back into the murky middle ages of Ireland, but since Ihave the endorsement of Dachs, I'll weigh in on this.
The Cromwellian invasion of Ireland was devestating. How devestating compared to the thirty years war and such I can't say, but in terms of Irish history, of warfare we can actually get a good grip on, the only contender for a war worse for Ireland was the Bruce Invasion, which, to be fair to Cromwell, was probably worse. However, In a few months Cromwell managed to inflict more damage on the Island then the Vikings did in centuries.
The reason why Cromwell stands out as a villain in Irish history has less to do with Drogheda then people think. Drogheda is just a good focal point. The real reasons have to do with the Cromwellian Land settlement, which caused suffice to say, a number of probelms for Ireland. In this respect, his lasting damage outweighed the Bruce invasion, or the Vikings, or really anything in the recorded history of Ireland.
Now, as for his intentions, I think they speak a good deal worse for Cromwell then his actions. I'd disagree with the characterization of what happened as 'genocide' but he certainly contemplated the concept, and his son certainly pushed for it. To this end he intended to drive the native Irish from every piece of land within 15 miles of the coast, and in practice enslaved thousands of Irish men and women for export to the Carribean (another aspect that's overlooked, but provides the emotional weight to Drogheda). I would say he certainly would have liked to destroy the Irish as a people (though not exterminate them), but simply did not have the means to do it.
So while I'd say his methods of warfare might not have been entirely unusual by European standards, they probably counted as unacceptable even then (the two being seperate things). But in what he actually did once the shooting stopped, he was certainly a tremendous cause of suffering throughout Ireland.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Presumably we could have just learned it from the Irish who knew that for centuries.
Well done. I was going to add that the massacres were bad enough, but a lot of the worst oppression occurred under the Commonwealth after he left. So perhaps he should bear partial responsibility for the mass deportations, imprisonments, and executions that followed.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The sad part is that what I said is not an exagguration. He really did kill 2/3 of the population of Ireland.
EDIT: Looked it up because I didn't think I had the number right. I didn't. It was more like 1/4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
If I remember my Total Population of Ireland Trends, and these casualties are correct, it's closer to 1/8th.
Which while still bad, is a very, very long way from 2/3rds
Which while still bad, is a very, very long way from 2/3rds
Awwwww Dachs I saw ur name and i wanted an essay, pls
Oliver Cromwell revolutioned our political system by telling the monarch that he is not infalliable and that he is accountable for his actions by parliament and the People. Without Cromwell what hope is there for the production of the great US constituitoin?
Presumably when you say Cromwell here you don't mean Cromwell at all right?
You have John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Sir Arthur Haselrig,William Strode along with Viscount Mandeville (the 5 birds that had flown when Charles arrived to arrest them) who mostly establish the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty at the outset of the long parliament. This can be at least traced to the Victorian era.
Then you have the execution of the king itself and an argument can be drawn here that Cromwell was perhaps in nominal charge of everything but it was John Bradshaw as President of the Court and therefore the first of the 59 to sign. Whilst it was Fairfax who was in charge of the Army until at least 1650 (either way the army was acting on its own course during the trial itself).
So then there is Pride's Purge and the establishment of the Rump parliament, something which is completly unconstitutional- simply only allowing people into parliament who are 'your men' and when Cromwell returns he does nothing about this, it is simply unbelievable that this so called bastion of parliament could have not done anything about this if he is the so called revolutionary. So from this point on the Rump parliament can be seen to be completly unconstitutional regardless, it was a body which had been elected over a decade previously, full of only the right people.
Cromwell subsequently 'revolutionised' Parliament by simply getting rid of it and establishing the Barebone's parliament and if you thought the previous parliament was bad then this one was even worse! It was comprised of people simply nominated by himself or the Army. In doing this he may as well have made himself king already, the country has already been effectively reverted to the pre magna carta days of only those chosen getting a say.
Then, after declining a position in this Parliament he decides 'i'll revolutionise some more and infact just become king in all but name'.
Finally, Cromwells death and the very swift end of the Protectorate as it quickly became apparent that his support was solely based on that of the army.
I would say that Cromwell himself did very little to further the ideals of Parliament, it would be a very long shot to say that without him things would have been completly different. Even if the king had not been executed the Parliament in place would have still have been in a commanding position. Then following Cromwells failure it can be seen that political thinking was simply not evolved enough to envisage such an era without a monarch and the restoration happened. So for all them reasons and the story i don't think Cromwell revolutionised anything (except perhaps some imput on the NMA). Whilst i could go on for another 30 lines about why, without Cromwell the US constitution would be just fine.
Whether he was a mass murderer is a different matter however.
cubsfan6506
Got u
By the way claiming that Oliver Cromwell's killing of civilians in Ireland isn't bad simply because worse atrocities were being committed on the continent, is just about as asinine as claiming that the rape of Nanking wasn't bad simply because the holocaust was bing committed at the same time.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Can people please stop trying to rewrite history? First the Reagan was a God thread (and for some reason bad-mouthing Charles I, he was a decent monarch forced into an unenviable position. At the very least, he was better than Louis XVI. Charles tried to fix the situation, while Louis simply let it get worse, and worse, and worse, and then Robsepierre came, and it kept on getting worse, ect.). Now there is this thread on Cromwell? For all the bad things Cromwell did, it is equaled out by the good he did. Although he went on to become a dictator, his victory at Naseby led to the creation of modern England. Which was considered the model for European Enlightened Rulership (At least according to my AP Euro book and Montesque). So people, please stop trying to rewrite history. At the very least, have an educated discussion rather than comparring the ECW to the 30YW. (I still believe the 30YW was more destructive than the ECW as in many areas the population went down by 1/3, in addition, from what I know, events like those that occured in Grimelhausens Simpliccimuss weren't uncommon)
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
But it was by letting things get worse and worse and worse, that Louis XVI caused the creation of Modern Europe indeed, many would argue the creation of the Modern world. If you're going to Credit Cromwell with something as vague as creating something as vague as "modern England", then give Louis his fair share.
But in many Areas Cromwell did precisely that.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I was not referring simply to the number of casualties, but to the manner in which you present them. They were not, as you imply, a concerted campaign of genocide, conducted on the bigoted whim of a single man, but part of a far broader, more complex conflict which had already provoked a decade of warfare across the British Isles.
It's worth remembering that around one fifth of the civilian casualties in the war were protestants, a number roughly consistent with the overall population; most casualties were the result of famine, disease and other disruptions of war, rather than direct violence. If the war was particularly brutal, it cannot be left entirely at the feet of the English, simply because they won. Their opponents, Royalist or Irish, however you chose to identify them, were every bit as brutal when they wanted to be, they just seemed incapable of granting themselves such opportunity.
