Say what you like about him, he made for a damn fine Monty Python song…
For his time, Oliver Cromwell was a progressive figure in that he successfully challenged the Divine Right of Kings and placed ultimate political power in an elected body of representatives. Even the Restoration was allowed after his death only if it was a constitutional monarchy rather than absolute. Essentially, the English Revolution was the first bourgeois revolution and a progressive step. I hold Cromwell in high regard because of it.
That having been said, he was also a product of his times and there are many aspects of his rule which can rightly be criticized. Especially his conduct in Ireland. But then again, such things are only explainable in the light that the English monarchs were involved in much the same activities - enclosure of common lands and the forced pauperization of the farming peasants was very much a fact of life by the time of Elizabeth I.
Cromwell was a progressive. Doesn’t mean he was better than the monarchs overall.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yojimbo *
**Another thing that Cromwell did was to reinforce the protestant absentee landlords.
A huge amount of land was taken from catholics and given to Cromwells soldiers.
My ancestors were among those soldiers, French mercenaries who’d been displaced by that country’s civil wars, but the “ethnic cleansing” they participated in was ultimately useless, because after another four genrations or so they considered themselves Irishmen and had to be driven off the land in turn. Many of the Irish who came to America found employment in the US cavalry and helped drive the Indians off their homeland. I get so tired of that cliche “those who fail to leanr from history etc…” Even if you do learn from history you’re still doomed to repeat it.
D’oh, that’s right. I don’t know why I’m confusing them.
Lots and lots of misconceptions here. I’ll try to deal with the more obvious. I fear that this is going to be a very long post.
‘Cromwell left us Puritan refugees in America’. Wrong. Neither Cromwell’s rule nor the ending of the republic made any significant difference to the scale of American colonisation. A mere handful of republicans felt it necessary to flee to America in 1660.
‘The independent Parliament thing? Would have happened anyway’. This is a counterfactual which many historians would dispute. One argument is that the main legacy of the 1640s and the 1650s was intellectual and that this did influence events in 1688 and after. Without memories of the earlier period, later events might have turned out very different.
‘Cromwell closed down Parliament’. Wrong. He did close down one Parliament, or rather what was left of one, the Rump, but as Lord Protector he ruled through two Parliaments which he himself summoned.
‘Cromwell’s death inspired a Great Literary Period’. Debatable. What you mean is that a number of poets, of whom Milton is the most obvious, supported him during the 1650s. I’m not sure that Cromwell ought to be credited with influencing the quality of their output.
‘Charles II had the body exhumed’. Wrong. It was Parliament which had the body exhumed. What is believed to be the head is buried in the chapel of his old Cambridge college, Sidney Sussex.
‘[H]is toleration didn’t extend to Catholics or Presbyterians’. Almost, but not quite correct. His regime forbade Catholic or Anglican services. In the case of the Anglicans, this was mainly because they were seen as supporters of the exiled Stuarts, although, in practice, they were often allowed to worship in private. There is also surprisingly little evidence for active persecution of Catholics by Cromwell’s government in England. What he did oppose was the attempt by the Presbyterians to retain some sort of state church with a monopoly on public worship. His view seems to have been that loyal Protestants ought to have the option of worshipping elsewhere.
‘[F]or his time, he was a rather progressive figure’. Yes, but, by the same logic, so too were Charles II and James II. One could also add that Charles I had been far more tolerant than most of his subjects.
‘He [Thomas Cromwell] may have been an ancestor of Oliver, but it’s difficult to be sure’. Thomas Cromwell was certainly not Cromwell’s ancestor, but it is generally agreed that they were related. Oliver’s ancestors had changed their surname from Williams in the 1530s to emphasise kinship they claimed with Thomas Cromwell.
‘[T]he English Revolution was the first bourgeois revolution’. Not even Christopher Hill believes that any more. Such statements reflect ideas which were discredited at least a generation ago. It remains debatable whether the monarchy as restored in 1660 was much more ‘constitutional’ than that which had existed before 1629 or even 1640. Charles II was restored on a massive wave of nostalgia for the old system (with a bit of help from Monck who had been left in no doubt as to which way public opinion was turning). The only substantial condition imposed on Charles was the vague promise of some sort of religious toleration, which Parliament subsequently disregarded, much to Charles’s annoyance.
Cromwell’s policy in Ireland amounted to genocide. This is simply untrue. Such claims usually confuse two separate questions: (1) Cromwell’s personal conduct during the initial invasion (or re-conquest, depending on your point of view), and (2) the form of the land settlement imposed as a result of that invasion. The ‘black legend’ of Cromwell in Ireland usually dwells on the lurid details of the first point and yet this is the weakest part of the case. No one denies that large numbers of civilians were killed when the English soldiers went on the rampage after the falls of Drogheda and Wexford. At Drogheda Cromwell is known to have authorised this. However, as I indicated above, modern historians recognise that this fell moreorless within the conventions of seventeenth century warfare. There were rules about how beseiged towns ought to be treated and Cromwell made some attempt to follow them. If you don’t believe me, I suggest that you consult John Morrill (ed.), ‘Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution’ (Longmans, 1990), esp. pp. 110-12, 155-8. (This collection of essays, by the leading historians in the field, gives the best overview of modern scholarship on the man. A number of the contributors are Catholic.) This is a question which is nowhere near as simple as you wish to believe. More relevant is the second argument that Cromwell’s invasion resulted in an attempted mass deplacement of much of the native population. This is true. Moreover modern English historians are only too happy to acknowledge this. The phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ is one which is now much used. But genocide? No reputable estimate of casulties comes anywhere near justifying such a term. What very quickly happened was that the ex-soldiers got there and realised that it made far more sense to retain the existing inhabitants on the land as their tenants. The original plan had always been impractical and was never fully implemented. Of course, this did leave the ex-soldiers in control as the new landowners and this did indeed do much to create the Irish land problem. Further confiscations in the 1660s and the 1690s compounded the problem. Cromwell himself probably believed that these confiscations were only what the Irish themselves would have done if their supposed plans for an invasion of England had ever been carried out.
Doesn’t Henry Pym deserve more credit for the rise of an independent parliament than Cromwell?
John Pym was the leading figure in the House of Commons during the early stages of the Civil War. Cromwell only emerged as a major figure during the later stages of the Civil War as a result of his success as a soldier. Moreover, it was only after his return from the campaigns in Ireland (1649-50) and Scotland (1650-1) that Cromwell became indisputably the dominant figure in English politics.
There is also probably no real sense in which Pym wanted ‘an independent parliament’ - what he was trying to do was to use Parliament to put pressure on Charles I to change his policies. Cromwell started out wanting this as well; he was not opposed to the principle of a monarchy, just the particular monarch who happened to be ruling England in the 1640s.
Henry Pym?
You’re not elling me that Ant Man deposed Charles I, are you?
APB, thanks for steering me straight on those two points, above. I have a follow-up question for you, on the exhumation of Cromwell, Bradshaw, and Ireton - it was done by the authority of Parliament, but to what extent did Charles II influence it?
My understanding is that Charles was generally willing to grant amnesties to Parliamentarians, wink at past conduct and so on, but that he drew the line at the regicides - i.e. all those who had sat in judgment on his father and signed the death warrant - which included Bradshaw (President of the Court), Cromwell and Ireton.
So, to what extent was Parliament carrying out the wishes of Charles? Did he actively encourage the measures they took, or was his role more passive - with other Parliamentarians, he would exert himself for mercy, but for the regicides, he let the passions of the Royalists in Parliament have full play?
I’ve also done a bit of follow-up work on the relation between Oliver and Thomas Cromwell. Thomas was his great-great-great uncle. Thomas’s sister Katherine married Morgan ap William, a Welshman. The Welsh had not yet adopted static last names, and were still going by patronymics, so Morgan was referred to both as “ap William” and as “Williams,” and also as “Cromwell,” following his marriage to Katherine. No doubt part of the reason for doing so was to link himself to the successful and powerful Earl, as you noted. Apparently his son, Richard, (Oliver’s great-grandfather) also took the last name “Cromwell,” but the family continued to use Williams on occasion, in legal deeds and the such. Following the Restoration, the family of Oliver’s uncle apparently reverted to Williams, to avoid public opprobrium
When I said it was difficult to be sure of the exact connexion between Oliver and Thomas, I’m afraid I was actually thinking of the relationship between Thomas Cromwell and the Cromwells of the Lancastrian period, who were enobled but had died out at the end of the reign of Henry VI. Thos. Cromwell apparently disavowed any direct connexion, but since they all came from the same area of England, there may well have been some family relationship.
You know, I never could figure out what connection Snoopy saw between Charlie Brown and Oliver Cromwell. I mean, sure, C.B. was a “round-headed kid,” but he obviously had no political/religious ideology to speak of.
Well, I think it’s like this. Cromwell took power and began kicking the shit out of the Royalty. He took over England then began kicking the shit out of the Irish and Scots. The French and Dutch where affraid they get an asskicking soon so bent over and took it in the ass as far as foreign policy goes. Ok, so he got ride of Theatre, dancing, drinking and just having fun, but he made England feared…who wouldn’t love a guy like that? History is always pretty kind to those who get things done, even if they step on a few toes along the way.
That’s a good point. Look at Peter the Great. Peter the Great. He was a ruthless, merciless tyrant. Yet he’s Peter the Great. Nicholas II, one of the mildest Tsars to rule was Nicholas the Bloody.
Go figure.
Charles II’s views on the exhumations of the regicides who had been buried in Westminster Abbey are not known. I suspect that he didn’t much care either way. He was probably even prepared to forgive most of the surviving regicides (he knew who they were and they were unlikely to cause trouble) but always exempted them from the promise of a pardon as a symbolic act of retribution. Parliament’s motives for ordering the exhumations were mixed - some MPs genuinely hated Cromwell and some wished to demonstrate their loyalty to the new king.
The evidence that Thomas Cromwell was Oliver’s great-great-great-uncle can only be inferred indirectly (Williams is a common name, particularly in Wales), but everyone accepts that this is the case. The senior line of the branch which had changed their name in the 1530s, most of whom were Royalists, did change their name back to Williams after the Restoration. The lord protector’s own descendants continued to use Cromwell as their usual surname.
Cromwell’s rise to power set off an unprecedented wave of land theft in the United States that became an established tradition. Prior to his ascension, land in North America was considered to be owned by the Indians unless expressly negotiated for by the Sovereign or taken by right of conquest. In addition to robbing the Indians through drunken transactions, an entire region, the King’s Province, simply ceased to exist with the demise of Charles I. It eventually became western Rhode Island.
It is arguable that Cromwell’s short tenure gave the American colonies the unredactable independence that would eventually lead to their secession. Left to fend for themselves, the colonists started to become Americans rather than merely transplanted English citizens. It was the first seed of rebellion.
You complete Dick, that is the exact kind of thing that really gets my back up, as far as I’m concerned The English have commited some of the greatest attrosities in history through their “Empire Building” but have never been held responsible, an appology now and then would be nice.
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (PURITAN)
Born in 1599 and died in 1658 (SEPTEMBER) Was at first (ONLY) MP for Huntingdon(BUT THEN) He led the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won.
Then he founded the new model army and praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby and the King fled up North, like a bat to the Scots.
BUT UNDER THE TERMS OF JOHN PIMM'S
SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, THE
SCOTS HANDED KING CHARLES I OVER
TO ...
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (AND HIS WARTS)Born in 1599 and died in 1658 (SEPTEMBER)But alas (OY VAY!)
Disagreement then broke out (BETWEEN) The Presbyterian Parliament and the Military who meant to have an independent bent.
And so …
The 2nd Civil War broke out And the Roundhead ranks
Faced the Cavaliers at Preston banks And the King lost again, silly thing (STUPID GIT)
AND CROMWELL SENT COLONEL PRIDE
TO PURGE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF
THE PRESBYTERIAN ROYALISTS,
LEAVING BEHIND ONLY THE RUMP
PARLIAMENT ...
Which appointed a High Court at Westminster Hall to indict Charles I for tyranny (OOOHHH!) Charles was sentenced to death even though he refused to accept that the court had jurisdiction (SAY GOODBYE TO HIS HEAD.)
Poor King Charles laid his head on the block JANUARY 1649. Down came the axe, and
IN THE SILENCE THAT FOLLOWED, THE
ONLY SOUND THAT COULD BE HEARD
WAS A SOLITARY GIGGLE, FROM ...
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (OLE) Born in 1599 and died in 1658 (SEPTEMBER) then he smashed (IRELAND)
set up the Commonwealth (AND MORE)he crushed the Scots at Worcester And beat the Dutch at sea in 1653 and then he dissolved the rump Parliament and with Lambert’s consent
Wrote the instrument of Government under which Oliver was Protector at last.
The end.
FYI, the saying “By Hook or by Crook” con be attributed to Oliver Cromwell when he was planning the invasion of Ireland. When he wanted to land troops on the south eastern coast, there were 2 good places to land, Hook Head, and Crook Head. He was undecided as to which place to land, hence he would land in Ireland, “by hook or by crook”. IIRC he landed at Hook Head.
Ronan, is it safe to assume that you could make it to O’Neills on Suffolk Street at shortish notice?
ronan, I take it you would be able to find your way
Hey! Mind your language. Personal insults as well as foul language are not allowed in this forum. Welcome aboard, and enjoy the ride. Just try to be civil about it, okay?
Sorry, just got a bit carried away there.
TwistOfFate - I know were O’Neills is but never drink there.
Ronan, if you ever join the rest of us Irish, We always end up there one way or the other…
Ain’t that the truth. They should start selling SD T-shirts behind the bar.
Hi ronan 