Who Would You Support In the English Civil War [Archive]

Claverhouse

02-28-2011, 09:40 PM

Why?

I don't really see the necessity of expanding, since argument is basically pointless self-gratification and no victory is possible by converting someone unworthy to be a royalist, or unworthy to be a cat lover, or unworthy to appreciate [ 'insert name of favourite author' ] etc.: it's just caviare to the general and can harm one's own side to have people joining it who have not arrived through their own inner journey*.

Which is not a hit at you: there is a necessity for all types of belief and every possible vision to be held, however abhorrent, in order a/ that man might be free, and b/ to have something to fight against. If there were no spiritual evil to combat we would be far less than animals.

However, in this case it is because I believe in Divine Right, and legitimate monarchy by hereditary primogeniture; because I loathe puritans and hate republicanism; because I revere the Stuarts and in particular think Charles I to be one of the greatest men in history; and because the extraordinary groups ranged against him ( which were incompatible with each other ) were both separately and combined, scum.

I am a royalist because I don't really care for being told what to do, or what to think, or having people in charge: since having someone in charge is needed ( and even anarchist communes default to having someone in charge ), I would rather have one man with a damn good reason, such as that he was born to it, rather than a chosen dictator, or a faction, or the rich, or the poor, or a group of quite awful people each selected by the votes of people whom I don't care for very much and who in no way are likely to be right because they are in the majority.

* Although obviously during actual conflict it is needed to conscript as many people temporarily to one's will in order to win. They can be discarded afterwards.

Really Not All That Bright

02-28-2011, 09:46 PM

No. Look, just because I support one side doesn't mean I approve of everything they did. Because Parliamentary power was secured in England, absolutism as in most of Europe was avoided.
All you really need to know about the sides in the English Civil War is that by the time Cromwell died, the people were so fed up with the Roundheads that they welcomed Charles II back almost to a man.

It was like getting rid of Nicholas II and going directly to Stalin.

Guinastasia

02-28-2011, 09:48 PM

And is the end of a corrupt, absolutist monarchy any better? So don't be too surprised if in a Cavalier-victory world you end up being a poor illiterate peasent, who works from five am to six pm and who has six or seven crying children along with three or four who've died in infancy.

You just described my great-grandfather's life right here in Western Pennsylvania in the early 1900s. He came over from Hungary, worked in a coal mine (extremely dangerous work, I might add -- ever heard the song "Sixteen Tons?"), he and my great-grandmother had eleven kids, and I believe she had several miscarriages.

Or my mother's other grandfather, who came over from Poland. HE worked in the coke ovens, my great-grandmother was illiterate AND she never learned to speak English. They had about eight kids. All of this was during the Great Depression.

Back on topic -- yeah, my ancestors were poor. But that was life back then. All they knew was that Charles wasn't out to wipe them off the face of the earth (kipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland). (I exaggerate, but that's probably how it seemed to them)

Hunger and hard labor were pretty much standard back then. Child mortality? My DAD'S grandmother had numerous miscarriages, and a few stillborns. She had five children -- and only three made it to adulthood. And this was in the 1920s.
Hell, ROYALTY didn't expect all of their children to survive. The fact that all of Queen Victoria's children all survived to adulthood was quite a feat. (And one of THEM was a hemophilliac!)

Claverhouse

02-28-2011, 09:49 PM

Qin Shi Huangdi

02-28-2011, 09:52 PM

I don't really see the necessity of expanding, since argument is basically pointless self-gratification and no victory is possible by converting someone unworthy to be a royalist, or unworthy to be a cat lover, or unworthy to appreciate [ 'insert name of favourite author' ] etc.: it's just caviare to the general and can harm one's own side to have people joining it who have not arrived through their own inner journey*.

Which is not a hit at you: there is a necessity for all types of belief and every possible vision to be held, however abhorrent, in order a/ that man might be free, and b/ to have something to fight against. If there were no spiritual evil to combat we would be far less than animals.

However, in this case it is because I believe in Divine Right, and legitimate monarchy by hereditary primogeniture; because I loathe puritans and hate republicanism; because I revere the Stuarts and in particular think Charles I to be one of the greatest men in history; and because the extraordinary groups ranged against him ( which were incompatible with each other ) were both separately and combined, scum.

I am a royalist because I don't really care for being told what to do, or what to think, or having people in charge: since having someone in charge is needed ( and even anarchist communes default to having someone in charge ), I would rather have one man with a damn good reason, such as that he was born to it, rather than a chosen dictator, or a faction, or the rich, or the poor, or a group of quite awful people each selected by the votes of people whom I don't care for very much and who in no way are likely to be right because they are in the majority.

* Although obviously during actual conflict it is needed to conscript as many people temporarily to one's will in order to win. They can be discarded afterwards.

The theory of divine right largely comes from Christianity and you said to the effect you weren't a Christian-are you a Deist divine righter or a Muslim divine righter or something?

All you really need to know about the sides in the English Civil War is that by the time Cromwell died, the people were so fed up with the Roundheads that they welcomed Charles II back almost to a man.

It was like getting rid of Nicholas II and going directly to Stalin.

Only after Charles II agreed to several demands and reforms and James II got chased out when he defied it.

silenus

02-28-2011, 09:55 PM

"Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."*

Roundheads Forever! Death to every Stuart!

*Ok, so it was written by a Frenchman instead of an Englishman. The sentiment's the same.

Claverhouse

02-28-2011, 09:58 PM

Or my mother's other grandfather, who came over from Poland. HE worked in the coke ovens, my great-grandmother was illiterate AND she never learned to speak English. They had about eight kids. All of this was during the Great Depression.

I can't remember where, since it was a few years ago on the internet, but I read that in the furnaces of Pittsburgh in the 1920s & '30s, which was back-breaking heat-intensive work, and you died young, Poles had to do 16 hour shifts. Then if the foreman saw a need you'd have to pull a double shift back to back.

Andy Carnegie was a very strong believer in republican government, and wrote books about it.

Qin Shi Huangdi

02-28-2011, 09:59 PM

Which is so different from the outcome in the totally incorruptible, aristocratic English parliamentary triumph of the whig 18th century, and the incorruptible libertarian gilded age of late 19th century America, each where the poor were so cherished and unexploited...

No those societies sure as Hell wasn't perfect, but they were slightly better-in the US everyone from the billionaire to the beggar were (theoretically) treated the same by the law. People started charities and other programs to start helping the poor.

Really Not All That Bright

02-28-2011, 10:01 PM

Only after Charles II agreed to several demands and reforms and James II got chased out when he defied it.
Uh, no. Charles II was a reformer, and believed quite strongly (for the time) in religious tolerance. Most of what he proposed was blocked by Parliament.

Claverhouse

02-28-2011, 10:05 PM

The theory of divine right largely comes from Christianity and you said to the effect you weren't a Christian-are you a Deist divine righter or a Muslim divine righter or something?

I don't care to discuss my religion or lack thereof on the internet.

But Divine Right is not necessarily christian, although naturally in that period Europe was mostly christian ( or one provided a reasonable facsimile of devotion if one was something other, but sensible ) therefore it had a christian aura then. There has always been loyalty to one's hereditary lord somewhere on earth.

Guinastasia

02-28-2011, 10:10 PM

I can't remember where, since it was a few years ago on the internet, but I read that in the furnaces of Pittsburgh in the 1920s & '30s, which was back-breaking heat-intensive work, and you died young, Poles had to do 16 hour shifts. Then if the foreman saw a need you'd have to pull a double shift back to back.

Oh, I can believe it. Why do you think Pittsburgh is such a strong union town?

Tamerlane

02-28-2011, 10:17 PM

One of my cats (http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/Timur_photo/cats/IMG_3358Large.jpg) is named after Prince Rupert of the Rhine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine). My other cat (http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/Timur_photo/cats/IMG_1860.jpg) is named after Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell). The English Civil gets re-fought at my house every evening (http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/Timur_photo/cats/IMG_2838Large2.jpg).

I could hardly choose :p.

MEBuckner

03-01-2011, 12:30 AM

Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) all the way.

Peremensoe

03-01-2011, 12:36 AM

Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) all the way.

Before or after Cromwell decided to long-knife them?

MEBuckner

03-01-2011, 12:45 AM

Well, by that standard I'll be a pro-Cromwell Parliamentarian (while taking care not to be too closely associated with the Regicide, since I don't wish to be drawn and quartered), then quickly change sides and become a Royalist upon the Restoration.

"Treason is a matter of dates." -- Talleyrand

Tom Scud

03-01-2011, 12:50 AM

Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) all the way.

More of a Digger myself.

Alessan

03-01-2011, 02:05 AM

Well, not only did Oliver Cromwell lift the ban on Jews settling in England, he personally invited the Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam to London and urged him to bring his community with him. So just for that, I'm on his side.

OTOH, Charles II oversaw the greatest age of scientific discovery the world had seen since ancient Athens, so I have no problem with the Restoration, either.

Girl From Mars

03-01-2011, 03:01 AM

Cavaliers - way sexier.

Hypno-Toad

03-01-2011, 07:49 AM

I went with the roundheads. There were bastards on both sides and it wasn't a hollywood-style, good vs. evil conflict. So I don't consider the Roundheads to be "The Good Guys" But I do not like the "divine right" view of the world no matter how romantic it is. I'd rather have power in the hand of a Parliment than the king and aristocracy.

Really Not All That Bright

03-01-2011, 08:07 AM

I think most of us would, but that wasn't really an option. It was more a question of whether you wanted power in the hands of the king or the Lord Protector.

E-Sabbath

03-01-2011, 08:30 AM

Welp, at the time, the ancestor what left for America supported the Roundheads. This was largely viewed by many as a bad idea, him being Irish and all, and precipitated his urgent relocation.

Truthfully, he only supported 'em because he was in a long and very angry argument with his father the Baron.

So, all things considered, it really would depend on which of them were being greater assholes at the time. If the answer is both, as it tends to be in the family, I would _agree_ with the Roundheads, but I'd have to oppose them in regards to the whole killing everybody I know issue. (On the other hand, this is _not_ where the centuries-old tradition of supporting rebellions came from.)

Fuck it. Third choice. I'm off to America.

duffer

03-01-2011, 08:49 AM

Well, I'm Scottish, Irish, and Catholic. So fuck the Roundheads. Hell, I'd go with the French if they were the alternate. And Girl From Mars, how you doin'? ;)

Captain Amazing

03-01-2011, 03:25 PM

I'm backing the Roundheads. Charles I was an idiot, and the problem with Divine Right of Kings is that you wind up with people like Charles I.

thelurkinghorror

03-01-2011, 03:49 PM

Other - Confederates. Technically relates to the larger Wars of the Three Kingdoms, but close enough.

Guinastasia

03-01-2011, 05:07 PM

Well, I'm Scottish, Irish, and Catholic. So fuck the Roundheads. Hell, I'd go with the French if they were the alternate. And Girl From Mars, how you doin'? ;)

You know how Liberal feels about Andrew Jackson? While I'm not nearly as rabid, that's kind of how I view Oliver Cromwell. Guy was a bastard and I hope he's rotting in hell.

Hell, if I were to go to Britain, and saw a statue of Cromwell, I'd have to restrain myself from spitting on it.

Captain Amazing

03-01-2011, 05:18 PM

You know how Liberal feels about Andrew Jackson? While I'm not nearly as rabid, that's kind of how I view Oliver Cromwell. Guy was a bastard and I hope he's rotting in hell.

Hell, if I were to go to Britain, and saw a statue of Cromwell, I'd have to restrain myself from spitting on it.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but why? Is it because he sacked that Irish town that wouldn't surrender?

Claverhouse

03-01-2011, 05:40 PM

Hell, if I were to go to Britain, and saw a statue of Cromwell, I'd have to restrain myself from spitting on it.

Actually there is a statue of the morose old POS in front of the houses of parliament -- a Victorian gesture to rally the nonconformist vote when assorted baptists and congregationalists could swing elections --- and there was an old chap during some part of the 20th century who did pass by every day on the way to work who spat on it every damn time. I honour that man.

On statues, this 30th of January I was the only person who attended at the right time for the ceremony of King Charles on Trafalgar Square. The ceremony was postponed to a later date because of alleged rioters. Of whom I saw none.

Did speak to a drunk druggie though who needed a pound.

The Alternative Victorian perspective...

By The Statue of King Charles at Charing Cross (http://www.poetry-archive.com/j/by_the_statue_of_king_charles.html) --- Lionel Johnson

SOMBRE and rich, the skies,
Great glooms, and starry plains;
Gently the night wind sighs;
Else a vast silence reigns.

...

Armoured he rides, his head
Bare to the stars of doom;
He triumphs now, the dead,
Beholding London's gloom.

santosvega

03-01-2011, 06:00 PM

For the King, without hesitation. I always fancied myself the iconoclastic, anti-authoritarian sort, so when I went through a spell of reading a couple of books on the English Civil War, I surprised myself and others who know me by sympathizing with Charles and the Cavaliers so readily. But the Roundheads were a bunch of assholes, and Cromwell was the biggest asshole of them all.
And Qin, yeah, dirt poor peasants supported the Roundheads in general -- those dirt-poor peasants who were English and Calvinist. Dirt-poor peasants in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Yorkshire often supported Charles.
Also, Qin, you agree with the Roundheads theologically? I was raised a devout Catholic (though I now lean Anglican), and honestly my exposure to Protestant theology was very limited in the ethnic neighborhoods in which I grew up, so reading about the Civil War was my first exposure to some of the more hardline Calvinist theological beliefs that characterized the Roundheads, like predestination. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Catholic dogma can seem absurd, but completely devaluing works and deeds in favour of a preordained fate determined by God at the beginning of time seems downright Manson-level psychotic to my ears. Lowborn puritans in England often fell into deep depressions and occasionally became suicidal over the prospect that they may not have been amongst the predetermined saved. That's just fucked up.
I'm rambling. But I believe that a king is better than a dictator nine times out of ten. And Cromwell may have used Parliament to secure power, but upon taking power he was as absolutist as any king in Britain's history.

thelurkinghorror

03-01-2011, 06:23 PM

You know how Liberal feels about Andrew Jackson? While I'm not nearly as rabid, that's kind of how I view Oliver Cromwell. Guy was a bastard and I hope he's rotting in hell.

Hell, if I were to go to Britain, and saw a statue of Cromwell, I'd have to restrain myself from spitting on it.

I have a relative who claims he made a trip to his grave/tomb just to spit on it.

Guinastasia

03-01-2011, 07:36 PM

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)

Not to put to fine a point on it, but why? Is it because he sacked that Irish town that wouldn't surrender?

Are you talking about Drogheda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda#Cromwell.E2.80.99s_siege_1649)?

Some 200 Royalists under Arthur Aston, the garrison commander, had barricaded themselves in Millmount Fort overlooking the south-eastern gate, while the rest of the town was being sacked. Wary of trying to storm the fort, which Cromwell described as, "a place very strong, and of difficult access, being exceeding high, having a good graft, and strongly palisaded" , Parliamentary Colonel Axtell, "offered to spare the lives of the governor and the 200 men with him if they surrendered on the promise of their lives, which they did".

According to Axtell, the disarmed men were then taken to a windmill and killed about an hour after they had surrendered. Arthur Aston was reportedly beaten to death with his own wooden leg that the New Model Army soldiers thought had gold hidden in it. Cromwell wrote of the incident, "our men getting up to them, were ordered by me to put them all to the sword"

Civilian casualties

It has not been clearly established how many civilians died in the sack of Drogheda. Cromwell listed the dead as including, "many inhabitants" of Drogheda in his report to Parliament. Hugh Peters, an officer on Cromwell's council of war, gave the total loss of life as 3,552, of whom about 2,800 were soldiers, meaning that between 700–800 civilians were killed. John Barratt wrote in 2009, "there are no reliable reports from either side that many [civilians] were killed".

The only surviving civilian account of the siege is from Dean Bernard, a Protestant cleric, though a Royalist. He states that during the sack while some 30 of his parishioners were sheltering in his his house Parliamentarian troops fired in through the windows killing one civilian and wounding another. They then broke into the house firing their weapons, but were stopped from killing those inside when an officer known to Bernard identified them as Protestants. The fate of less fortunate civilians may therefore have been worse.

The week after the storming of Drogheda, the Royalist press in England claimed that 2,000 of the 3,000 dead were civilians—a theme that was taken up both in English Royalist and in Irish Catholic accounts. Irish clerical sources in the 1660s claimed that 4,000 civilians had died at Drogheda, denouncing the sack as "unparalleled savagery and treachery beyond any slaughterhouse".

(Sorry, right now Wiki is my only source)

The guy was a dick.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-01-2011, 08:38 PM

Also, Qin, you agree with the Roundheads theologically? I was raised a devout Catholic (though I now lean Anglican), and honestly my exposure to Protestant theology was very limited in the ethnic neighborhoods in which I grew up, so reading about the Civil War was my first exposure to some of the more hardline Calvinist theological beliefs that characterized the Roundheads, like predestination. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Catholic dogma can seem absurd, but completely devaluing works and deeds in favour of a preordained fate determined by God at the beginning of time seems downright Manson-level psychotic to my ears. Lowborn puritans in England often fell into deep depressions and occasionally became suicidal over the prospect that they may not have been amongst the predetermined saved. That's just fucked up.

Yes, of course, I agree with that although you word it rather negatively. I'm not Reformed and Presbyterian for nothin'.

Captain Amazing

03-01-2011, 09:16 PM

(Sorry, right now Wiki is my only source)

The guy was a dick.

The garrison didn't surrender. If you're a garrison that refuses surrender, the town gets sacked and the lives of the prisoners are forfeit. It's standard 17th century rule of war, and Cromwell was entirely right to do what he did.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-01-2011, 09:45 PM

Would any king or general or prime minister or emperor or sultan or rajah or doge or shah or chief done anything different during that time?

Guinastasia

03-01-2011, 10:07 PM

And what about promising to spare those who DID surrender...only to kill them anyways?

Guinastasia

03-01-2011, 10:12 PM

Would any king or general or prime minister or emperor or sultan or rajah or doge or shah or chief done anything different during that time?

You're the one supporting the Roundheads -- if the only justification you can give is that "well, everyone else acted that way", that's not a very good one.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-01-2011, 10:13 PM

You're the one supporting the Roundheads -- if the only justification you can give is that "well, everyone else acted that way", that's not a very good one.

In other areas they were more enlightened-parliamentary power for instance and their views on Jews.

silenus

03-01-2011, 10:14 PM

What about it? Cromwell did what he had to do, with limited time. The garrison refused to surrender. Period. By that action, they doomed themselves no matter what Cromwell promised. They got what they deserved.

The man wasn't a saint by any means, but Charles and the royalists had to go, and the Irish had to be suppressed. Cromwell did both with a vengeance.

Fretful Porpentine

03-01-2011, 10:23 PM

Such as...? :confused:

Herrick. Lovelace. Carew. All way, way more fun than Milton, though I will give the other side credit for Andrew Marvell.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-01-2011, 10:24 PM

Ah but only Milton achieved anything like lasting fame in the sense that he's read in high schools and are known by people outside literature connisoeurs (yeah I spelled that word wrong).

Captain Amazing

03-02-2011, 12:15 AM

And what about promising to spare those who DID surrender...only to kill them anyways?

Eh, that was kinda dirty. But, again, it's war. And it's not like the Parliamentary men were the only ones killing prisoners. Something similar to what happened to Aston also happened at Hopton Castle, and after Camp Hill, Prince Rupert's men sacked Birmingham and engaged in indiscriminate slaughter there.

So, put that on top of vengeance for the slaughter of (mostly pro-Parliamentarian Calvinist) settlers in Ulster by the Irish Confederates in the 1641 rebellion (about 12,000 were killed in reality, and rumors inflated the numbers to 200,000), there wasn't really any hope for leniency.

Peremensoe

03-02-2011, 04:00 AM

Eh, that was kinda dirty. But, again, it's war.

You don't get to cite "rules of war" elsewhere when it serves you and then wave away their flagrant violation by your side at another turn.

In Ireland, Cromwell's army were the invaders. They killed children and other noncombatants. The stain of some evils can't be washed away.

The man wasn't a saint by any means, but Charles and the royalists had to go, and the Irish had to be suppressed. Cromwell did both with a vengeance.

Is this a joke?

Bridget Burke

03-02-2011, 07:22 AM

....Is this a joke?

Puritans aren't known as jokesters.

(Robert Graves' The Story of Marie Powell: Wife to Mr. Milton is a great hatchet job on Cromwell's most famous apologist.)

carnivorousplant

03-02-2011, 08:17 AM

The Roundheads were responsible for that rat bastard, Cromwell. Fuckers. (I'm part Irish) ;)

During the Restoration, they exhumed the Judge and hanged him for Charles II's entrance. I thought that was pretty cool.
Besides, Solomon Kane is fictional. :)

MrDibble

03-02-2011, 08:31 AM

While I find their religious bent abhorrent and their Irish escapades also indefensible, at the same time, they were the anti-monarchist side. For that, and the New Model Army, Roundheads get my support.

Although, Qin, you're mistaken if you think it broke down along Protestant/not lines. Protestants were also on the Cav side.

The Roundheads were responsible for that rat bastard, Cromwell.I think you rather have your cart and horse mixed up, here. Not that Cromwell founded the Roundheads, but much more so than the other way around.

Also, he has a kicking theme tune (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ1yPz14LrU)

villa

03-02-2011, 09:55 AM

Put me down as another Parliamentarian, for the purpose of the elimination of the Monarchy (by execution). Then absolutely in full support of the Diggers, and to a lesser extent the Levellers.

carnivorousplant

03-02-2011, 10:47 AM

Put me down as another Parliamentarian, for the purpose of the elimination of the Monarchy (by execution).

Life imprisonment is not only more kind, you have a less dangerous overhead if the Royalists end up winning. :)

villa

03-02-2011, 10:49 AM

They should have done what the Russians did, and get rid of the heirs too.

carnivorousplant

03-02-2011, 10:55 AM

They should have done what the Russians did, and get rid of the heirs too.

But they didn't. (http://cilialacorte.com/mariaIofRussia.htm) That's the point.
And when they come back, like Charles II, they might be really, really pissed. If you just locked Uncle Nicky up for a few months, it's one thing. If you killed his Wife, kids, Physician, servants and various hangers on, it's another. :)

Captain Amazing

03-02-2011, 11:03 AM

You don't get to cite "rules of war" elsewhere when it serves you and then wave away their flagrant violation by your side at another turn.

I'm not. Aston and the men who surrendered with him probably shouldn't have been killed. It was wrong.

[quote]In Ireland, Cromwell's army were the invaders. They killed children and other noncombatants. The stain of some evils can't be washed away.?/QUOTE]

Again, Prince Rupert killed noncombatants at Birmingham. And the Irish killed a whole lot of non-combatants during the 1641 Rebellion. But under most circumstances, the New Model Army didn't harm non-combatants. The Ireland campaign (and Naseby) was an exception.

Ireland was in rebellion and allied with the Royalists, so it seems like the invasion, if you want to call it that, was legitimate. It's not like Ireland was a foreign country. It belonged to Britain, and as far as Parliament was concerned, they were the legitimate government of Britain.

villa

03-02-2011, 11:56 AM

But they didn't. (http://cilialacorte.com/mariaIofRussia.htm) That's the point.
And when they come back, like Charles II, they might be really, really pissed. If you just locked Uncle Nicky up for a few months, it's one thing. If you killed his Wife, kids, Physician, servants and various hangers on, it's another. :)

OK - what the Russians tried to do.

Then plowed the fields with salt, or whatever.

They want martyrs? We'll give them martyrs.

blindboyard

03-02-2011, 01:46 PM

Undecided.

By political conviction a Leveller, so probably fighting for the roundheads until knifed in the back. By haircut a cavalier. Also, living where I do I would have been living inside the walls of a Cavalier stronghold, three times besieged by the roundheads, personally relieved by Rupert, and so on.

Guinastasia

03-02-2011, 03:24 PM

Eh, that was kinda dirty. But, again, it's war. And it's not like the Parliamentary men were the only ones killing prisoners. Something similar to what happened to Aston also happened at Hopton Castle, and after Camp Hill, Prince Rupert's men sacked Birmingham and engaged in indiscriminate slaughter there.

So, put that on top of vengeance for the slaughter of (mostly pro-Parliamentarian Calvinist) settlers in Ulster by the Irish Confederates in the 1641 rebellion (about 12,000 were killed in reality, and rumors inflated the numbers to 200,000), there wasn't really any hope for leniency.

Drogheda had not been involved in the 1641 rebellion.

As for the Irish being in rebellion, one could also argue that they were merely against what they saw as an illegitimate usurper, and one who surpressed their religion and their culture. It wasn't simply Drogheda -- Cromwell hated the Irish and he hated Catholicism. Ireland saw him as a threat to their way of life, and rightly so.

And thus, I could never be persuaded to support the bastard.

Look, I'm not one for an absolute monarchy -- a constitutional monarchy, as Britain has now is much much better. However, as for Qin's comments on what life would have been like under the Caveliers -- it wouldn't have been much different under any other kind of government. People were used to being poor, hungry and sad to say, many children didn't survive to adulthood. That was true for the rich, as well as the poor. (Charles himself lost a son, I believe, at three years old)

gurujulp

03-02-2011, 03:29 PM

Captain Amazing

03-02-2011, 03:39 PM

As for the Irish being in rebellion, one could also argue that they were merely against what they saw as an illegitimate usurper, and one who surpressed their religion and their culture. It wasn't simply Drogheda -- Cromwell hated the Irish and he hated Catholicism. Ireland saw him as a threat to their way of life, and rightly so.

No argument there, but by doing that, they sealed their fate. They chose to go into rebellion, and they chose to stay Catholic, and they knew the cost of that.

gurujulp

03-02-2011, 03:42 PM

No argument there, but by doing that, they sealed their fate. They chose to go into rebellion, and they chose to stay Catholic, and they knew the cost of that.

Well- I am not catholic about much, and certainly not in the churchgoing sense- but I don't think a true believer could choose... Not to stop believing- perhaps to stop behaving as such...

villa

03-02-2011, 03:49 PM

Look, I'm not one for an absolute monarchy

Yet you will defend one against a Parliamentary based regime, when both sides committed essentially equivalent actions which in current times would be considered war crimes.

Guinastasia

03-02-2011, 06:01 PM

Yet you will defend one against a Parliamentary based regime, when both sides committed essentially equivalent actions which in current times would be considered war crimes.

Note -- I said in this case. I don't believe in any absolute government. HOWEVER, I would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I'm Irish and I'm Catholic (well lapsed), so I'm not going to support the guy who wants to wipe me out.

(And we're not talking about current times -- Qin asked who we would have supported in the English Civil War. I'm assuming he meant if we had been alive back then)

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

03-02-2011, 07:51 PM

In the fine old English tradition, I would support the nearest gang of highwaymen.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-02-2011, 08:45 PM

Although, Qin, you're mistaken if you think it broke down along Protestant/not lines. Protestants were also on the Cav side.

Yes but mostly Anglicans especially high-church ones not Non-Conformists.

Peremensoe

03-02-2011, 08:47 PM

Ireland was in rebellion and allied with the Royalists, so it seems like the invasion, if you want to call it that, was legitimate. It's not like Ireland was a foreign country. It belonged to Britain, and as far as Parliament was concerned, they were the legitimate government of Britain.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such thing as a "government of Britain," legitimate or otherwise, at the time. Cromwell's army was English. Many of them moved directly from the invasion of Ireland to an invasion of Scotland. And frankly the English largely treated Ireland as a foreign, subject country through most of their shared history, even in the 18th and 19th centuries when the bonds were far tighter than in Cromwell's day.

Daylate

03-02-2011, 09:04 PM

Would support the Cavaliers because, from all I've heard, the Roundheads were basically a bunch of Puritans, and I'm thoroughly with H.L. Mencken on this issue.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-02-2011, 09:29 PM

Would support the Cavaliers because, from all I've heard, the Roundheads were basically a bunch of Puritans, and I'm thoroughly with H.L. Mencken on this issue.

Why does everyone have this image of Puritans as a bunch of 17th Century Taliban? They were, regardless of their "Puritanism", fighting against absolutist monarchy. Also Puritans were the ones who really built America as we know it to-day-they founded Harvard, Yale, Princeton, they made Boston the intellectual centre of Anglophone North America for two hundred fifty years, and made New England the most industrialized, prosperous part of America.

Revenant Threshold

03-02-2011, 09:37 PM

Why does everyone have this image of Puritans as a bunch of 17th Century Taliban? They were, regardless of their "Puritanism", fighting against absolutist monarchy. Also Puritans were the ones who really built America as we know it to-day-they founded Harvard, Yale, Princeton, they made Boston the intellectual centre of Anglophone North America for two hundred fifty years, and made New England the most industrialized, prosperous part of America. Fighting against a wrong doesn't make you the good guys. You can't just "regardless" away something by pointing to wrongdoing on the other side. It's perfectly possible to, say, fight against one form of absolutist rule because you would prefer a different kind of absolutist rule that favours you. The king is dead, long live the king, and all that.

Captain Amazing

03-02-2011, 09:43 PM

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such thing as a "government of Britain," legitimate or otherwise, at the time. Cromwell's army was English. Many of them moved directly from the invasion of Ireland to an invasion of Scotland. And frankly the English largely treated Ireland as a foreign, subject country through most of their shared history, even in the 18th and 19th centuries when the bonds were far tighter than in Cromwell's day.

Ok, so government of England. (Sorry, I put Britain further back in my head than it really was...confused the act of Union with the Dual Monarchy). But Parliament was the English government, and Ireland belonged to England.

Peremensoe

03-02-2011, 10:04 PM

No place and people "belong" to another if they require an invasion and massacres to hold it.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-02-2011, 10:09 PM

No place and people "belong" to another if they require an invasion and massacres to hold it.

I suppose you are a Southern sympathizer then.

santosvega

03-02-2011, 10:11 PM

Can someone explain to me just how the Protectorate was so different from the Monarchy? Sure, many of the Roundheads believed they were fighting against absolutist rule, but once the Puritans took power the tone changed. Look at Scotland. The Bishops' War was the real beginning of the War of the Three Kingdoms. Scots, other than the Catholic highlanders, initially supported the war against Charles because they thought they were fighting against the Crown imposing a particular dogma upon them. It soon became apparent that the new boss was worse than the old boss in that respect. Charles believed firmly in his divine right to be king, but Cromwell believed even more firmly in his divine right to impose his religious dogma upon everybody else.
In all this talk of Irishness and Catholicism, a point needs to be made. Catholics in early modern England were the other. Quite the equivalent of how the average right-wing reactionary views Muslims today. Catholics are strange, they're not like us, they try to blow shit up (the Gunpowder Plot was still fresh in the collective memory). Charles Stewart was not a Catholic. He did not support the Catholic Church. Pretty much nobody in England supported Rome. Charles was generally anti-Catholic, he just wasn't anti-Catholic enough. To satisfy the the hard-line Puritans, you pretty much had to be frothing at the mouth burn 'em all anti-Catholic. Charles married a Catholic, and, out of character for a royal marriage, he genuinely loved and was devoted to his queen, which didn't help his 'soft on Catholicism' image. By the end of the war, it had become as much a conflict between (relative) religious tolerance and Puritan theocracy.
But back to the original point, how was Cromwell any different from the absolutist monarchies of old, aside from being a more effective military strategist and a bit more ruthless? The Puritans as a group may not have been a 17th century Taliban, Qin, but Cromwell's reign, well, was pretty much the reign of a 17th century Taliban. He was an absolutist monarch in all but name. He left the kingdom to his son, and if future Cromwells had have been as ruthless and strategic as Oliver was, it'd be the United Protectorate today instead of the United Kingdom.
Also, he banned Christmas celebrations. If you support, the Roundheads, you are pretty much casting a vote for the Grinch. Chew on that.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-02-2011, 10:21 PM

He allowed the Jews to return to England and allowed private practice of other religions-you can't really say he was more intolerant than Charles I.

thelurkinghorror

03-02-2011, 10:28 PM

Why does everyone have this image of Puritans as a bunch of 17th Century Taliban? They were, regardless of their "Puritanism", fighting against absolutist monarchy. Also Puritans were the ones who really built America as we know it to-day-they founded Harvard, Yale, Princeton, they made Boston the intellectual centre of Anglophone North America for two hundred fifty years, and made New England the most industrialized, prosperous part of America.

They also came to Maryland, the only colony with religious freedom, and proceeded to torch Catholic churches and temporarily take over the government so that they could build their theocracy.

Guinastasia

03-02-2011, 11:00 PM

He allowed the Jews to return to England and allowed private practice of other religions-you can't really say he was more intolerant than Charles I.

Oh, so as long as it's only ONE religion he's intolerant of, it's okay? :dubious:

MrDibble

03-03-2011, 01:23 AM

Oh, so as long as it's only ONE religion he's intolerant of, it's okay? :dubious:

A religion that, within living memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_of_the_North), had been a hotbed of traitors eager to sell England out to Spain. It wasn't just a religious pogrom, it was very much a political hate as well.

Ditto the whole Irish thing - since the time of Elizabeth, the Irish had been aiding the Spanish and actively fighting with them. If one were of a mind to (I'm definitely not, but many English of the time were) one could think the Irish got what was coming to them for continually rebelling against their legitimate (by God!) rulers for the past 150 years.

It's naive to think it was all only about religion. Really, it was the age-old England vs The Continent fight, carried out by proxies both local and overseas. A fight that continues to this very day, only mostly in Brussels and less messily.

An Gadaí

03-03-2011, 06:50 AM

Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers) all the way.

I think I'm going to see them tonight. :)

Bridget Burke

03-03-2011, 07:17 AM

I suppose you are a Southern sympathizer then.

Southern slaveholders helped found the United States of America. Their sons & grandsons seceded for fear that their right to hold slaves might be hindered. I'm very glad the United States government fought to keep the country united. And freed the slaves as a byproduct. The situation in Ireland was different.

Of course, you probably regard the rebels who founded the USA as traitors.

Peremensoe

03-03-2011, 07:35 AM

No place and people "belong" to another if they require an invasion and massacres to hold it.I suppose you are a Southern sympathizer then.

Yes. I'm always with the people fighting for independence and self-determination in their own land. All situations are different, but that much is the same, and it is deeper than politics.

MrDibble

03-03-2011, 08:34 AM

Yes. I'm always with the people fighting for independence and self-determination in their own land. Well, for White men, anyway.:rolleyes:

Peremensoe

03-03-2011, 08:54 AM

Well, for White men, anyway.:rolleyes:

No. For all peoples everywhere.

In the case of the American Civil War or War Between the States, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chippewa, Chickasaw and Seminole also fought for self-determination as allies of the Confederacy.

But the same principles apply in all cases. I recently suggested here that Americans ought to naturally sympathize, as I do, with the Kenyan Mau Mau uprising, for example.

villa

03-03-2011, 12:27 PM

No place and people "belong" to another if they require an invasion and massacres to hold it.

I presume you are in favor of giving the United States back to its indigenous population, then. I mean, if you can find enough that weren't massacred.

villa

03-03-2011, 12:36 PM

I'm Irish and I'm Catholic (well lapsed), so I'm not going to support the guy who wants to wipe me out.

To be fair, he never bothered my Irish family at all. So it is your catholicism that's the issue. And if you choose to pledge allegience to the enemies of England, it is a little ballsy to complain when England tries to do something about it. ;)

An Gadaí

03-03-2011, 12:48 PM

If you ever visited Drogheda (I'm playing a gig there tomorrow night) you'd wanna sack it to. At least you can see a head in a jar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Plunkett#Persecution) there.

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-03-2011, 05:50 PM

No. For all peoples everywhere.

In the case of the American Civil War or War Between the States, the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chippewa, Chickasaw and Seminole also fought for self-determination as allies of the Confederacy.

But the same principles apply in all cases. I recently suggested here that Americans ought to naturally sympathize, as I do, with the Kenyan Mau Mau uprising, for example.

What about the Taliban? What if the Germans under American occupation after World War II had launched a neo-Nazi revolt? What if the Japanese had launched a neo-Tojoist revolt?