5 ms·

Murdering women and children, even at that time, was considered bad. Shocking eh.

morelisp 6y ago
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
- pjc50 6y ago
  You're going to have to contextualise this.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    Cromwell was a monster reacting to a monstrous system. History is quick to pass judgement the former while ignoring - and in the case of England unlike France, perpetuating - the latter.
  - ali_m 6y ago
    This is from "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain - here he's talking about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution
elzbardico 6y ago
As if the british monarchy doesn't have their hands dirty with the blood of millions....
- Macha 6y ago
  Sure, and this is generally regarded as a bad thing. Cromwell gets defenders for opposing them, despite committing many of the same bad things, and in the case of Ireland, even harsher actions with longer term consequences. Complaints about the british monarchy don't excuse Cromwell his actions.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > Complaints about the british monarchy don't excuse Cromwell his actions. But it does mean reacting to this article purely for its ambivalence about Cromwell's actions is probably the least curious thing you can do.
- dash2 6y ago
  Which British monarch has their hands dirty with the blood of millions? The obvious cases where British policy led to that many deaths would be e.g. the Irish and Bengal famines (the latter during WWII). Those both took place at a time when the monarch was a constitutional figurehead. The best case might be the slave trade. But this was at its height under the Hanoverians, by which time the Commons was already the effective supreme power. I suppose you could say that the slave trade started earlier, and that this starting event caused the later expansion. Maybe, but that's a claim about the causal chain that needs arguing for.

There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

pjc50 6y ago
You're going to have to contextualise this.
- morelisp 6y ago
  Cromwell was a monster reacting to a monstrous system. History is quick to pass judgement the former while ignoring - and in the case of England unlike France, perpetuating - the latter.
- ali_m 6y ago
  This is from "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain - here he's talking about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution

elzbardico 6y ago

As if the british monarchy doesn't have their hands dirty with the blood of millions....

Macha 6y ago
Sure, and this is generally regarded as a bad thing. Cromwell gets defenders for opposing them, despite committing many of the same bad things, and in the case of Ireland, even harsher actions with longer term consequences. Complaints about the british monarchy don't excuse Cromwell his actions.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > Complaints about the british monarchy don't excuse Cromwell his actions. But it does mean reacting to this article purely for its ambivalence about Cromwell's actions is probably the least curious thing you can do.
dash2 6y ago
Which British monarch has their hands dirty with the blood of millions? The obvious cases where British policy led to that many deaths would be e.g. the Irish and Bengal famines (the latter during WWII). Those both took place at a time when the monarch was a constitutional figurehead. The best case might be the slave trade. But this was at its height under the Hanoverians, by which time the Commons was already the effective supreme power. I suppose you could say that the slave trade started earlier, and that this starting event caused the later expansion. Maybe, but that's a claim about the causal chain that needs arguing for.