Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes(atlasobscura.com)
atlasobscura.com
Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cromwell-cookbook
88 comments
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.
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.
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.
Sources: The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.
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 :)
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 :)
Nothing is what it seems, eh?
Thanks!
Thanks!
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
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
"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.)
(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.)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> '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.
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.
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.
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.
> * 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
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
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.
The choice is not Cromwell or liberal democracy. The choice is Cromwell or the Spanish Inquisition with Ireland as gateway to England.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Actually copied from Wikipedia, hence the left in citation markers, but Wikipedia's citations are:
1: Mícheál Ó Siochrú/RTÉ 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".
1: Mícheál Ó Siochrú/RTÉ 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".
> 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?
ISTR that the percentage who died in prison awaiting trial was was rather higher, no?
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.
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.)
And what was the king raising money for? Wars waged to enforce high church upon Scotland, while allowing with Spain against the Dutch.
> 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
* 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.
* 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.
Hitler was not good, much less great, for technology. Germany was the scientific center of the world before the Nazis took power, so their successes are mostly attributable to inertia. The Nazis destroyed this on their own with the 1933 Nuremberg laws.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2018092...
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2018092...
"... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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/fulltextPDF/A...
These give an estimate of population decline of 15-20%, mostly due to famine and plague (which the war was instrumental in spreading).
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/fulltextPDF/A...
These give an estimate of population decline of 15-20%, mostly due to famine and plague (which the war was instrumental in spreading).
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.
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.
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.
No worries. I've been called worse.
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
Also:
* Hitler fixed the roads
* Communist Russia got the first Satellite into space
In case you just wanted to read the contents: https://archive.org/details/courtkitchinofel00unse
The recipes start on reader page 74.
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.
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.
This would make a good horrible histories sketch
>” 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.
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.
Thats a bit of an anachronism, isnt it? The concept of war crimes was developed a few centuries later, wasnt it?
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...
> 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...
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)
James Joyce commentary: 1922 Winston Churchill commentary: 1957
300 years is a lot of hindsight.
James Joyce commentary: 1922 Winston Churchill commentary: 1957
300 years is a lot of hindsight.
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.
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(1)
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.
You have to remenber that things we take as granted nowdays, may have been divisive at the time.
Murdering women and children, even at that time, was considered bad. Shocking eh.
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.
You're going to have to contextualise this.
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
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.
As if the british monarchy doesn't have their hands dirty with the blood of millions....
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
If that were true he would have done the same thing in England.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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.)
No reason to think it wasn't a reasonably representative sample, however many thousand actually voted.
[deleted]
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.
"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.
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.
Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead, celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people. People worship has too many negatives.
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...)
Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas worth noting.
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.
Much of the goodwill towards Napoleon’s memory is from the nastier factors of the French psyche.
If Napoleon was hated at the time he would not get his 100 days.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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).
His critics like Cato weren’t abolitionists, if it was to him, the plebeians might have been slaves too (exaggeration).
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
* 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.