6 ms·

Thing to be mindful of with Cromwell, is that to some he’s a hero and to others he was a monster. A dichotomy heretofore yet unresolved after centuries.

by rusk 6y ago

classified 6y ago
He was a hero to his fellow monsters. Maybe he was inevitable, as some situations just breed monstrosities. That doesn't make his deeds less atrocious.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dash2 6y ago
  You are probably thinking about Ireland. Antonia Fraser's biography covers this in detail. Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. Of course, by modern standards it's atrocious, but that tells us more about the 17th century than about his personality. He also believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was responding to Irish atrocities against English settlers.
  - BaseS4 6y ago
    17 years in Afghanistan is the US responding to Islamic atrocities against New Yorkers. How does that frame taste?
  - rgblambda 6y ago
    > Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. If that were true he would have done the same thing in England.
    - dash2 6y ago
      Were there towns which refused to surrender? Colchester, when it finally surrendered during the second civil war, had to pay a ransom of £14,000 in exchange for not being pillaged, and the leaders of the defence were executed.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    >Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. I've seen other people argue this, but that statement is mostly the result of a single (self-proclaimed) amateur historian named Tom Reilly. What he is saying is that it was the norm at the time to behead surrendered troops and put their heads on pikes around the area. There's one real problem, though. That wasn't the norm at the time. It's never been the standard practice in siege warfare, especially in an attempted conquest, because it is stupid to do and discourages surrender later. In fact, in other instances Cromwell himself accepted surrenders. So it wasn't standard at all. In the end, though, whether or not Cromwell personally massacred thousands of civilians, he set up a government in Ireland and empowered the people that ended up causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
    - dash2 6y ago
      Here's a not-amateur historian who makes a similar argument: Ó Siochrú, M., 2007. Atrocity, codes of conduct and the Irish in the British Civil wars 1641–1653. Past and Present, 195(1), pp.55-86. Relevant quote: "This savage action [Drogheda] shocked opinion in Ireland and abroad, but by a strict interpretation of the rules of war Cromwell acted entirely within his rights. The commander of Drogheda, Sir Arthur Aston, refused a summons to surrender, thereby forfeiting his life and that of the garrison in the event of a successful assault." Later he describes Cromwell as moderating his tactics in response to "facts on the ground": exchanging prisoners, and accepting the surrender of Clonmel. After Cromwell left Ireland, the war became bloodier. Note that Ó Siochrú does not in general spare the English. He describes the "savage practices of England and Scotland" affecting Ireland in the 1640s, and gives examples of Irish prisoners of war being killed (in England), and of this being protested against by contemporary Royalists.
      - ameister14 6y ago
        There's a huge difference between 'standard practice' and 'technically within your rights.' If it were standard practice, there would be no shocked opinion in Ireland and abroad.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  He was voted tenth greatest Briton in a national poll there in 2002 - that's a lot of people to be describing as monsters. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons Churchill was first - another figure who splits opinion depending on where you ask. Either way, its always better not to demonise those you argue against, whatever you feel about who they are championing. Turning the opposition into "monsters" is what led to the pogroms and massacres these histories are full of.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > He was voted 10th greatest Briton in a national poll there in 2002 It was a TV competition the first round of which was a survey of 30,000 people. The voters who got him on the list and to 10th place probably aren't that many people to call “monsters”. (You were probably referring to all Britons other than the 9 ahead of him, but that’s simply the wrong set.)
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      No reason to think it wasn't a reasonably representative sample, however many thousand actually voted.
Macha 6y ago
I would hate for people to be looking at Hitler in 100 years going: "Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and the repercussions of his actions led to the european union and european peace eventually. And the 20th century was such a violent time, standards were different, they had two huge global wars. You had Stalin, Mao, countless african warlords, people were used to cruel dictatorships" There are already people today who look at Hitler as a hero. We don't look kindly on these people.
- dash2 6y ago
  That's fair, but how about Napoleon? He was viewed as a monster at the time, for starting needless wars that killed (only) tens of thousands. Later on people took a more balanced view. So, Hitler's reputation should not be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean nobody should be rehabilitated.
  - ianai 6y ago
    Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead, celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people. People worship has too many negatives.
    - dash2 6y ago
      I think taking a balanced view is a good idea. That involves acknowledging that sometimes individual achievements matter. (On Napoleon's legacy, Scott Alexander has a nice post about a famous paper by Acemoglu and Robinson: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-radical-reform https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-ra...)
      - ianai 6y ago
        Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas worth noting.
  - sonthonax 6y ago

Thing to be mindful of with Cromwell, is that to some he’s a hero and to others he was a monster. A dichotomy heretofore yet unresolved after centuries.

by rusk 6y ago

Thing to be mindful of with Cromwell, is that to some he’s a hero and to others he was a monster. A dichotomy heretofore yet unresolved after centuries.

classified 6y ago

He was a hero to his fellow monsters. Maybe he was inevitable, as some situations just breed monstrosities. That doesn't make his deeds less atrocious.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dash2 6y ago
You are probably thinking about Ireland. Antonia Fraser's biography covers this in detail. Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. Of course, by modern standards it's atrocious, but that tells us more about the 17th century than about his personality. He also believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was responding to Irish atrocities against English settlers.
- BaseS4 6y ago
  17 years in Afghanistan is the US responding to Islamic atrocities against New Yorkers. How does that frame taste?
- rgblambda 6y ago
  > Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. If that were true he would have done the same thing in England.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Were there towns which refused to surrender? Colchester, when it finally surrendered during the second civil war, had to pay a ransom of £14,000 in exchange for not being pillaged, and the leaders of the defence were executed.
- ameister14 6y ago
  >Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. I've seen other people argue this, but that statement is mostly the result of a single (self-proclaimed) amateur historian named Tom Reilly. What he is saying is that it was the norm at the time to behead surrendered troops and put their heads on pikes around the area. There's one real problem, though. That wasn't the norm at the time. It's never been the standard practice in siege warfare, especially in an attempted conquest, because it is stupid to do and discourages surrender later. In fact, in other instances Cromwell himself accepted surrenders. So it wasn't standard at all. In the end, though, whether or not Cromwell personally massacred thousands of civilians, he set up a government in Ireland and empowered the people that ended up causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Here's a not-amateur historian who makes a similar argument: Ó Siochrú, M., 2007. Atrocity, codes of conduct and the Irish in the British Civil wars 1641–1653. Past and Present, 195(1), pp.55-86. Relevant quote: "This savage action [Drogheda] shocked opinion in Ireland and abroad, but by a strict interpretation of the rules of war Cromwell acted entirely within his rights. The commander of Drogheda, Sir Arthur Aston, refused a summons to surrender, thereby forfeiting his life and that of the garrison in the event of a successful assault." Later he describes Cromwell as moderating his tactics in response to "facts on the ground": exchanging prisoners, and accepting the surrender of Clonmel. After Cromwell left Ireland, the war became bloodier. Note that Ó Siochrú does not in general spare the English. He describes the "savage practices of England and Scotland" affecting Ireland in the 1640s, and gives examples of Irish prisoners of war being killed (in England), and of this being protested against by contemporary Royalists.
    - ameister14 6y ago
      There's a huge difference between 'standard practice' and 'technically within your rights.' If it were standard practice, there would be no shocked opinion in Ireland and abroad.
mellosouls 6y ago
He was voted tenth greatest Briton in a national poll there in 2002 - that's a lot of people to be describing as monsters. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons Churchill was first - another figure who splits opinion depending on where you ask. Either way, its always better not to demonise those you argue against, whatever you feel about who they are championing. Turning the opposition into "monsters" is what led to the pogroms and massacres these histories are full of.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > He was voted 10th greatest Briton in a national poll there in 2002 It was a TV competition the first round of which was a survey of 30,000 people. The voters who got him on the list and to 10th place probably aren't that many people to call “monsters”. (You were probably referring to all Britons other than the 9 ahead of him, but that’s simply the wrong set.)
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    No reason to think it wasn't a reasonably representative sample, however many thousand actually voted.

Macha 6y ago

I would hate for people to be looking at Hitler in 100 years going: "Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and the repercussions of his actions led to the european union and european peace eventually. And the 20th century was such a violent time, standards were different, they had two huge global wars. You had Stalin, Mao, countless african warlords, people were used to cruel dictatorships" There are already people today who look at Hitler as a hero. We don't look kindly on these people.

dash2 6y ago
That's fair, but how about Napoleon? He was viewed as a monster at the time, for starting needless wars that killed (only) tens of thousands. Later on people took a more balanced view. So, Hitler's reputation should not be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean nobody should be rehabilitated.
- ianai 6y ago
  Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead, celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people. People worship has too many negatives.
  - dash2 6y ago
    I think taking a balanced view is a good idea. That involves acknowledging that sometimes individual achievements matter. (On Napoleon's legacy, Scott Alexander has a nice post about a famous paper by Acemoglu and Robinson: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-radical-reform https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-ra...)
    - ianai 6y ago
      Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas worth noting.
- sonthonax 6y ago