6 ms·

There's not surprisingly a lively debate about Ireland in these comments. A quick reminder about some other aspects to Cromwell's political career: * Lobbying

• rusk 6y ago
  You could argue that his legacy is still alive and kicking, interfaced in Northern Ireland. Also: * Hitler fixed the roads * Communist Russia got the first Satellite into space
• Grimm1 6y ago
  That's neat. Cromwell's legacy is his treatment of the Irish the rest of his legacy can be safely disregarded. "Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.[11] The Parliamentarians also transported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.[2]" We don't go but, "oh Hitler painted pictures too". Edit: Swap "painted pictures" for "built roads", or "helped progress rocket technology", my point is unchanged and in fact strengthened.
  • carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    I'm not sure the things listed are the same as 'painting pictures'. I'm not even saying you're wrong about Cromwell, but at least take the points fairly.
    • Macha 6y ago
      * The first two are simply a rotation. Jews were back in favour, and Catholics were out. * The third was something that happened in Cromwell's reign, but there's no evidence he contributed positively or negatively, and the fact that the monarchy followed up by supporting it and actually chartering the royal society seems to indicate that it had little connection to what the actual regime in power was. * Primary education good, sure. * So I was not familiar with the anglo-dutch war so I read the wikipedia article. This appears to be a trade dispute because the English wanted to look the dutch out of shipping to England that was escalated to war by the English after the Dutch refused their ultimatum? This is being offered as a "good" act? So overall, I don't think funding primary education is an achievement that even begins to counterbalance his actions, sorry. Besides, to go back to the example of Hitler (and no, this is not Godwin's law, Hitler is the most appropriate comparison to Cromwell in Irish history), Hitler was _great_ for technology. The germans started modern rocketry which led to our modern satelite communications, the allies invented computing, both sides made big leaps in industrial production. I don't think anyone sensible thinks the above should be considered in a judgement on Hitler's actions. Neither do I think education/scientific funding should excuse Cromwell's.
      • dash2 6y ago
        "... a rotation. Jews were back in favour" is a weird way to parse the end of a 400 year period during which Jews weren't even allowed in the country. About his patronage for science: he was more interested in training up preachers, but he wouldn't have seen these as opposed. He planned to set up colleges in the North; Hartlib (key figure in the Invisible College) was on the committee for Durham. These plans were ended by the Restoration. You're very casual about primary education! It wasn't seen as an obviously good thing at the time - which is why it was reversed. Even in the 19th century, many people still argued that you shouldn't over-educate the working masses. Early literacy may have been a crucial step towards the take-off into economic growth. There's a lot of people making the comparison with Hitler. I suggest that even the harshest interpretation of the Irish campaign does not bear comparison with the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. English colonization predates Cromwell by at least a century. Ethnic cleansing was planned and carried out in several areas of Ireland. This is, obviously, very bad indeed! But it is not the same as Zyklon gas. The plan had also been laid down before Cromwell became Protector. When he intervened personally, it was usually to urge mercy for specific individuals. This is not the same as "no Hitler, no Holocaust". Lastly, you're assuming that I only wanted to mention "good stuff". I just wanted a slightly broader and calmer debate. I don't know the historical effects of defeating Spain or Holland.
        • Grimm1 6y ago
          There's no broader debate to be had, you're simply being an apologist for someone who cannot be redeemed. At every chance at multiple places in this thread you try to play down his actions, and at every point you're offered decent explanations as to why he's worse -- I'm starting to consider you a bigot lightly couched in academic reading.
          • dash2 6y ago
            I'm sorry you think so! You would make your argument stronger if you addressed some of my specific points. I'm sure my reading is pretty light (full disclosure: it consists of the Fraser biography, plus the King's War, King's Peace and Trial of Charles I trilogy), so if you have more or different sources, they might add some balance.
• justin66 6y ago
  > * Pushing for religious toleration. Those who want to learn more about Cromwell's "push for religious toleration" might want to start by picking up God's Executioner by Micheal O Siochru. I won't spoil it. ahem
  • wbl 6y ago
    The choice is not Cromwell or liberal democracy. The choice is Cromwell or the Spanish Inquisition with Ireland as gateway to England.
    • Macha 6y ago
      > According to modern estimates, around 150,000 were prosecuted for various offenses during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed (~2.7% of all cases). > Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent > [Cromwellian conquest Irish casualties] Unknown; 15,000–20,000 battlefield casualties, over 200,000–600,000 civilian casualties (from war-related violence, famine or disease)[1] ~50,000 deported as indentured labourers[2][3] > Wexford was the scene of another infamous atrocity: the Sack of Wexford, when Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while negotiations for its surrender were ongoing, and sacked it, killing about 2,000 soldiers and 1,500 townspeople and burning much of the town Cromwell was, at the low end, signficantly worse than the Spanish Inquisition at an absolute level, and given the relative populations of Ireland and Spain in those days, looks even worse in a proportional level. And don't forget, this is comparing 5 years of cromwell to 300 of the inquisition.
      • leoc 6y ago
        > out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed (~2.7% of all cases) ISTR that the percentage who died in prison awaiting trial was was rather higher, no?
        • Macha 6y ago
          From the figures in my previous post, if all 150k people prosecuted by the Spanish Inquisition died in prison or were executed, then the lower bound estimate death toll of 5 years of Cromwell would still be 50% higher than 300 years of the inquisition.
• _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
  "Pushing for religious toleration" in this case would be sort like talking about the Taliban as religiously tolerant because they pushed for toleration of Wahhabism. (And the choice of comparison here is not carelessly chosen: like the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan for idolatry by the Taliban, Cromwell presided over the destruction of numerous medieval monuments/artwork for the same reason.)
  • dash2 6y ago
    I'm not an expert, but in Antonia Fraser's biography, Cromwell comes across as a remarkably tolerant person for his time. He was anti-Catholic, but this is in the context of 150 years of religious conflict including, within living memory, an attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. And yet he negotiated with the Pope to secure freedom of private worship for Catholics in exchange for the Pope not preaching rebellion to English subjects. Of the many bigots on his side, he once said "Nothing will satisfy them unless they can put their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there." He spoke for toleration: "I had rather that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God's children should be persecuted." He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.) I've already mentioned his protection of the Jews. It's important not to confuse Cromwell with "the Puritans" in general, still less some of the extremists in the army. He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.
    • _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
      > He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.) It's clear that it was different, not that it was wider. Cromwell was generally interested in toleration of various 'non-conformist' groups, but mostly Calvinist ones (presumably these were the ones he counted as "God's children"; 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away since there weren't any significant number of Muslims in Britain at the time). Even Quakers didn't end up particularly well-protected by the Protectorate. (James II, Charles I's younger son, did much more for the Quakers.) The toleration of Jews was plausibly driven in part by Puritan millennarist beliefs about the role of the Jews in the end-times, but there was a more general trend towards more positive views of Jews throughout the 17th and into the 18th-centuries which doesn't seem specific to Cromwell or the Puritans. > He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters. He ended up with far more power (both direct and indirect) than the kings preceding or following him.
• pjc50 6y ago
  > Pushing for religious toleration. Er, no, rather the opposite. > Fighting the Dutch I don't see why this is in the positive column; English political dysfunctionality was so bad that thirty years after Cromwell's death, the English establishment invited the Dutch to invade, welcomed them, and had them fight the Irish (again). William of Orange is still celebrated by anti-Catholic groups.
• notahacker 6y ago
  This list misses the actual reason various historians have sought to rehabilitate Cromwell or at least paint him as a complex figure: he was a symbol of middle class rebellion against arbitrary monarchical power and the emergence of Parliament as the centre of British politics, having risen from relatively humble origins to play a leading role in the military defeat of and political decision to execute a monarch seen as exceeding his powers over Parliament. Of course the great irony is that he then arbitrarily dismissed Parliament himself (though the record doesn't suggest this was his actual goal) and was so unpopular in power that the restoration of the previous king's son to the throne on his death was inevitable. He certainly wasn't the poster boy for the development of British democracy, but he influenced its development massively - positively and negatively. There is a decent chance that Parliament would have overthrown and executed Charles I without his military skill or enthusiasm for regicide (just like similar massacres in Ireland would likely have taken place without his -disputed- involvement and apologia) as he wasn't even a significant figure at the beginning of the conflict, but those whose name and public statements becomes most known always get the credit and the blame.
  • DenisM 6y ago
    I think you have to start citing your sources. My sources suggest that Cromwell was hugely popular and pretty much not allowed to leave his post, which is why the restoration did not happen until after his death. He was even pushed to accept the crown himself - that's as popular as one could get. Also he was not into regicide, and King Charles I was only axed because he stubbornly refused to pare down his ambition from absolute monarchy to anything less, and with full agreement of the Parliament. Sources: The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.
    • inops 6y ago
      A big reason why the Roundheads wanted to make Cromwell king was to limit his power. His status as Lord Protector was not King, and therefore had none of the constraints on power that the kingdom had evolved over the centuries. He wasn't widely popular outside the parliamentarians, who were the ones in power. The "godly", who made up the majority of the Roundheads were reviled by a substantial portion of the British. Cromwell held the Commonwealth together, that's for sure, but the cohesion amongst the Roundheads dried up once he died. Source: The English and their History by Robert Tombs