[HN Gopher] Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family re...
___________________________________________________________________
Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes
Author : pepys
Score : 64 points
Date : 2021-03-13 06:49 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.atlasobscura.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.atlasobscura.com)
| rusk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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]
| mellosouls wrote:
| 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
|
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| No reason to think it wasn't a reasonably representative
| sample, however many thousand actually voted.
| dash2 wrote:
| 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.
| rgblambda wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Were there towns which refused to surrender? Colchester,
| when it finally surrendered during the second civil war,
| had to pay a ransom of PS14,000 in exchange for not being
| pillaged, and the leaders of the defence were executed.
| BaseS4 wrote:
| 17 years in Afghanistan is the US responding to Islamic
| atrocities against New Yorkers.
|
| How does that frame taste?
| ameister14 wrote:
| >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.
| Macha wrote:
| 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.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| You don't seem to have much of a grasp on history.
|
| Had Hitler stopped after winning the Battle of France, he
| would be considered a military genius.
|
| And Stalin and Mao saved their countries from literal
| enslavement.
|
| Note that the US helped liberate both Russia and China,
| despite US Marxists/DNC vilifying the US today as "an evil
| country."
| BaseS4 wrote:
| You shouldn't visit India or the Middle East, then.
|
| Hitler demonization is mostly a Western fetish.
| sonthonax wrote:
| However, historical relativism really only makes sense when
| we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding
| cliched, our political-moral lens was largely crystallised by
| the French Revolution, where ideas of universal equality
| really emerged as a political force. We don't criticise
| Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians
| absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose
| slavery in Haiti.
|
| Until something like that happens again, we will probably
| always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman.
|
| Also there's the problem that Hitler didn't revitalise the
| economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary
| victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an
| economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn't
| even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance
| caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that
| was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every
| remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk.
| Germany's economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just
| crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of
| the 30s looted by Stalin.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > We don't criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish
| slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for
| attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti.
|
| I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or
| wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes _without_
| saying.
|
| The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a
| _country_ that exists today (not people, everyone alive
| then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting
| responsibility to make things right _today_.
|
| Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity
| today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of
| behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no
| connection to the present is pointless, except when using
| it as an example.
|
| In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in
| morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because
| morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their
| work they give their findings an expiration date.
| sonthonax wrote:
| > I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right
| or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without
| saying.
|
| Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly
| immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were
| divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality
| was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours
| weren't rewarded in the afterlife.
|
| You probably couldn't debate Cesar about the morality of
| slavery, he simply wouldn't understand you.
|
| > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling
| in morality.
|
| Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments
| of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history
| was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the
| morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the
| Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the
| Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they
| were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the
| Romans).
|
| > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because
| morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their
| work they give their findings an expiration date.
|
| Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They're certainly
| not current, and all have enormously different moral
| viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but
| none are 'expired'. When you read these you get a first
| hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians,
| which is as important to our civilisation's development
| as the past itself.
|
| History is as much the study of the past as it is the
| study of history itself.
| rgblambda wrote:
| >We don't criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves
|
| The Roman Senate absolutely did. Caesar was to be put on
| trial for the atrocities he perpetrated, which is why he
| decided to seize power in the first place.
| sonthonax wrote:
| That's true, but it wasn't the enslaving itself they took
| issue with. It was his provocations of a historical foe,
| the breach of treaties, and the dictatorial power he
| accumulated by doing so.
|
| His critics like Cato weren't abolitionists, if it was to
| him, the plebeians might have been slaves too
| (exaggeration).
| dash2 wrote:
| 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.
| sonthonax wrote:
| And that's really the right viewpoint: Monster, Antichrist,
| etc.
|
| Much of the goodwill towards Napoleon's memory is from the
| nastier factors of the French psyche.
| DenisM wrote:
| If Napoleon was hated at the time he would not get his 100
| days.
| ianai wrote:
| Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead,
| celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people.
| People worship has too many negatives.
| dash2 wrote:
| 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-ra...)
| ianai wrote:
| Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas
| worth noting.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| He should have died for many other things, but eventually they
| came up with treason and......heresy. So much for implementing
| religious tolerance. As soon the tides have turned, catholicism
| was the new trend and predictably, he would be guilty of heresy
| by catholic definition.
|
| Of course all the religious banners and labels always have been
| an excuse for power and money grabs.
|
| Cromwell has a place in history right next to people like pol
| pot, Himmler and other such figures.
| wrongdonf wrote:
| I was suffering from super bad bipolar episodes and a general
| mental health crisis recently when I came across a documentary
| about Cromwell. It was so inspiring to see someone struggle with
| the same problems and overcome them, accomplish such great
| things, and do it all before it was even recognized as a
| legitimate illness. I really came back from the brink thanks to
| that coincidence.
| DenisM wrote:
| Which documentary is that?
| BaseS4 wrote:
| This is some amazing victim conflation. Bravo, influence
| operatives!
| fiftyacorn wrote:
| This would make a good horrible histories sketch
| seanieb wrote:
| >" the anonymous editor peppered the text with political,
| personal, and sexual slander aimed at tarnishing the Cromwell
| legacy."
|
| Stopped reading at this point. If the author doesn't understand
| that the Cromwell legacy is already tarnished due to war crimes I
| doubt there's going to be much reason to continue.
| andi999 wrote:
| Thats a bit of an anachronism, isnt it? The concept of war
| crimes was developed a few centuries later, wasnt it?
| barrkel wrote:
| The atrocities are remembered in Ireland as atrocities all
| the same.
|
| > _James Joyce wrote in Ulysses, 1922, "What about
| sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women
| and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text God
| is love pasted round the mouth of his cannon?"_
|
| > _Winston Churchill's view in The History of the English
| Speaking Peoples: The Age of Revolution, 1957, is perhaps
| less artful, but succinct: "By an uncompleted process of
| terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual
| proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds
| already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and
| the creeds.... Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of
| Cromwell.' "_
|
| Quotes propagated from
| https://simanaitissays.com/2018/11/28/oliver-cromwell-
| purita...
| HPsquared wrote:
| Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
|
| James Joyce commentary: 1922 Winston Churchill commentary:
| 1957
|
| 300 years is a lot of hindsight.
| seanieb wrote:
| Is there a specific fact, letters etc. from the time
| you're arguing against? From what I recall his barbarism
| was seen to stand out at the time in England and Ireland.
| He used it as a type of shock and awe, so when arrived at
| the next town they'd just surrender or flee.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Just that the subject is the politics of the time (i.e.
| what were the people at the time arguing about - what was
| that "legacy" they were looking to influence), and that
| modern authors are looking at things from a different
| perspective.
| morelisp wrote:
| Love too read one colonialist war criminal Spiderman
| pointing at the other.
| dbuder wrote:
| One great hero of the realm pointing at the other as a
| war criminal as others point at him in the same way.
| arka2147483647 wrote:
| At the time, it may have been that the "Jury is still out".
|
| You have to remenber that things we take as granted nowdays,
| may have been divisive at the time.
| seanieb wrote:
| Murdering women and children, even at that time, was
| considered bad. Shocking eh.
| elzbardico wrote:
| As if the british monarchy doesn't have their hands dirty
| with the blood of millions....
| dash2 wrote:
| 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.
| Macha wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| You're going to have to contextualise this.
| morelisp wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| dash2 wrote:
| 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 to allow Jews back into England (officially, there
| probably were unofficial Jewish residents already).
|
| * Pushing for religious toleration.
|
| * A big expansion in primary education, which was later reversed
| under Charles II.
|
| * The development of science by the Invisible College around
| Samuel Hartlib, later to become the Royal Society.
|
| * Fighting the Dutch and Spanish.
| justin66 wrote:
| > * 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 wrote:
| The choice is not Cromwell or liberal democracy. The choice
| is Cromwell or the Spanish Inquisition with Ireland as
| gateway to England.
| edgyquant wrote:
| The Spanish had already been defeated nearly half a century
| earlier and the Royal Navy supreme. This is completely
| wrong and the Civil War didn't start over religion it was
| over ship money (the King not consenting parliament to
| raise taxes.)
| wbl wrote:
| And what was the king raising money for? Wars waged to
| enforce high church upon Scotland, while allowing with
| Spain against the Dutch.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's absolutely insane that four hundred years later people
| are still repeating anti-Catholic propaganda from an
| ancient war.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I personally find this entire post and discussion thread
| reprehensible.
| Macha wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dash2 wrote:
| I think you missed your citations.
|
| Another point is that GP's claim "it was Cromwell or the
| inquisition" is a bit overblown. It was Cromwell or a
| relatively High Church monarchy, and a lot of taxation
| without representation. I don't think there's a credible
| argument that Charles I would have reintroduced
| Catholicism, still less the Inquisition.
| Macha wrote:
| Actually copied from Wikipedia, hence the left in
| citation markers, but Wikipedia's citations are:
|
| 1: Micheal O Siochru/RTE ONE, Cromwell in Ireland Part 2.
| Broadcast 16 September 2008.
|
| 2: O'Callaghan, Sean (2000). To Hell or Barbados.
| Brandon. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-86322-272-6.
|
| 3: Higman, B. W. (1997). Knight, Franklin W. (ed.).
| General History of the Caribbean: The slave societies of
| the Caribbean. 3 (illustrated ed.). UNESCO. pp. 107,
| 108]. ISBN 978-0-333-65605-1.
|
| The 15-80% figure sources are:
|
| 15-25% Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War,
| p112
|
| 50%: The History and Social Influence of the Potato,
| Redcliffe N. Salaman, Edited by JG Hawkes, 9780521316231,
| Cambridge University Press How many died during
| Cromwell's campaign?
|
| 83%: The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland by John
| Patrick Prendergast
|
| I would suspect perhaps that the 83% figure is probably
| going so far as to blame Cromwell for The Great Famine of
| 1845, and definitely his "to hell or to Connacht"
| campaign of dispossessing native Irish landowners was a
| contributing factor in the economic structure that led to
| it, but I think 200 years apart is enough to not directly
| attribute that as "deaths to Cromwell's invasion".
| dash2 wrote:
| Tell us more. I've been quoting from my reading, but I am
| sure it's one-sided. Your perspective would be a valuable
| complement.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| * 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 wrote:
| "... 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.
| Macha wrote:
| Hitler is absolutely the correct comparison. The lowest
| estimate for Cromwell's death toll in Ireland (sourced in
| in my other reply to you) is 15%.
|
| In comparison, Hitler in Poland is 16%. [1]
|
| Another factor that makes it an appropriate comparison:
| Like Hitler dispossessed Poles to give their land to
| Germans, Cromwell dispossessed Irish Catholics to give
| their land to English and Scottish Protestants.
|
| [1]: Materski, Wojciech; Szarota, Tomasz (2009).
| "Przedmowa" [Preface]. Polska 1939-1945. Straty Osobowe i
| Ofiary Represji pod Dwiema Okupacjami [Human Losses and
| Victims of Repressions under Two Occupations] (in
| Polish). Warsaw: IPN. ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6. Archived
| from the original on 23 March 2012. Retrieved 27 October
| 2014.
| dash2 wrote:
| Hitler is far from unique in pushing one ethnic group
| out. Throughout human history that has, sadly, been
| common.
|
| Percentages are important, but Hitler was responsible for
| the death of _millions_. Absolute numbers matter too.
|
| I looked more into the history. (Your cite doesn't give
| 600,000 for the figure killed by Cromwell, but for the
| whole civil war. In fact, the author ends "One wonders
| how many of the c. 600,000 victims died during Cromwell's
| campaign." The cite there is to Michael St John Parker,
| which I can't find.) I'm still hunting for reliable
| estimates of the population decline. Houston and Houston
| "Population history" isn't available online. The writers
| in Ohlmeyer (cited below) don't seem to put up a headline
| figure. William Petty's estimates aren't modern enough to
| be useful, although Petty was a serious writer. Note two
| points. First, population decline isn't the same as
| causing deaths, especially in a young population. Iraq
| after 1990 saw "missing population" of up to a million
| due to sanctions, but this is probably not because a
| million people were directly killed. You also have to
| account for declining birth rates and emigration. For
| instance, marriages fell sharply at the start of the
| civil war period. Other deaths were due to famine and
| starvation. Again, these are appalling, buut they are not
| the same as murder in death camps.
|
| More importantly, these are figures for the entire
| 1641-1661 conflict. But Cromwell was only there
| relatively briefly. He didn't start the conflict, nor
| finish it. He became a shorthand for the whole English
| policy of the period. That is not necessarily fair to
| him.
|
| None of this makes Cromwell innocent. (Still less does it
| make the English leadership as a whole innocent.) But the
| Hitler comparison are still overblown:
|
| * Cromwell took part in a brutal colonial civil war,
| which devastated the Irish economy and led to famine and
| disease. He was responsible for massacres at Wexford and
| Drogheda.
|
| * Hitler committed deliberate, systematic genocide
| against at least two ethnic groups, setting up
| scientific-industrial systems of mass murder which killed
| millions.
|
| These are not the same.
|
| Things I read while learning more about this:
|
| https://academic.oup.com/past/article-
| abstract/195/1/55/1523...
|
| Rai, M., 1993. Columbus in Ireland. Race & Class, 34(4),
| pp.25-34.
|
| Ohlmeyer, J.H. ed., 2002. Ireland from independence to
| occupation, 1641-1660. Cambridge University Press.
|
| _Update_. The most serious, detailed estimates I could
| find are:
|
| Lenihan, P., 1997. War and population, 1649-52. Irish
| Economic and Social History, 24(1), pp.1-21, available at
|
| https://search.proquest.com/docview/1292941669/fulltextPD
| F/A...
|
| These give an estimate of population decline of 15-20%,
| mostly due to famine and plague (which the war was
| instrumental in spreading).
| Grimm1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I would like to apologize to you for calling you a
| potential bigot, and though I personally feel that other
| places in the thread have done a good job speaking to the
| counterpoints about just how awful I believe Cromwell to
| be, after I collect myself and read through everything
| again I'll try to offer more than just emotionally driven
| attacks. I flew off the handle because this is obviously
| a personal issue to me for various reasons, where as for
| you this is most likely of detached academic interest.
| Not justification, just explanation.
| dash2 wrote:
| No worries. I've been called worse.
| _emacsomancer_ wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| > 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.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away
|
| hm think again, the English people traded, travelled and
| warred across the known World. The ideas and social
| constructs of far-away others would certainly be a topic
| amongst the educated. A public position of tolerance may
| have been something substantial. Next, weigh that against
| a forceful, vocal and unapologetic Christian branch that
| stood for conversion of un-saved souls through the bounty
| of our Lord JC amen. So, no, not so easy to throw out
| IHMO.
| _emacsomancer_ wrote:
| I don't dispute any of what you say; in fact, I think
| perhaps even not just a topic for the 'educated' but also
| in more popular venues.
|
| But the context here was Cromwell talking about
| (hypothetically) preferring to allow 'Mahometanism' to be
| practised in England, not just as an idea or social
| construct of far-away others.
|
| Since there wasn't any great likelihood that any legal or
| social changes were going to actually cause
| 'Mahometanism' to suddenly flourish in England, it is
| indeed a pretty easy throw-away remark.
| rusk wrote:
| 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
| pjc50 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| notahacker wrote:
| The Humble Petition was a small number of MPs offering him
| the Crown as a carrot to try to persuade him to tone down
| the military rule of his generals in the provinces and give
| power back to Parliament. Cromwell rejected it after some
| deliberation, not least because he believed some of his
| military allies would turn on him if he did. He filled a
| power vacuum, but the support he got from the military was
| conditional, and the Parliaments he convened didn't back
| his agendas despite his allies designing the franchises and
| vetting the candidates. Even Cromwell himself didn't think
| he was popular as opposed to powerful, famously remarking
| of a cheering crowd that "they would just as noisy if they
| were going to see me hanged". He stayed in power due to
| skill at bridging factions who hated each other and
| commanding armies, but failed to build a legacy or unite
| people behind a cause which meant the Restoration happened
| without significant opposition (and the public got to cheer
| the hanging of his exhumed corpse). After that, not not
| many words were written in his favour until Carlyle decided
| to make him a hero of history in the 19th century. In the
| absence of a Lord Protector, we might have seen an attempt
| at an English Republic instead, and it is conceivable it
| could have lasted longer.
|
| It is true that regicide was not Parliament's original
| intent and was not pursued until after the _Second_ Civil
| War. But Cromwell was prominent in making it happen when it
| did.
|
| It's been over a decade since I studied Cromwell so you'll
| forgive me for not listing every source I read on the
| subject, but suffice to say it's more than one podcast :)
| DenisM wrote:
| Nothing is what it seems, eh?
|
| Thanks!
| inops wrote:
| 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
| pbnjay wrote:
| In case you just wanted to read the contents:
| https://archive.org/details/courtkitchinofel00unse
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| The recipes start on reader page 74.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-14 23:03 UTC)