The official NMA board
General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: Amandistan on June 19, 2015, 09:32:36 PM
-
I get that he was responsible for Parliament and considered a war hero but he still committed genocide.
He hated catholics and had an evil puritan agenda. He walks into a primarily catholic country and murders them.
He is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people .
He banned Catholicism in a catholic country. He killed clergy men, burned catholics alive,Started and ethical cleansing campaign and banned the practice of their faith. His motives were
pure hatred.
Why on earth does he have a memorial statue erected in London? He is no hero, he was purely evil.
The Germans don't see Hitler as a hero so why do the english see Cromwell as a hero? Is the genocide not taught in English history classes?
-
Well as ever Amanda, a small amount of research would have easily answered your question but no matter.
Q.1. Hero? I would say he isn't (and most historians agree). One of the most influential men in British history absolutely, but actually hes an incredibly dispersive figure. Hell, even Churchill considered him to be a Dictator.
Q.2. He hated Catholics? Well he certainly hated the Catholic Church which at the time was (and had been for hundreds of years) the most powerful/rich and authoritarian organization in the western world. Which in itself had caused multiple wars and the death of hundreds of thousands of people (not forgetting the persecution of women by the inquisition). Puritanisn was a reaction against this and at the time was seen almost as a working class revolution. Of course, they ended up as bad in some cases as the regime they sought to overthrow but thats what happens when you pitch one strand of religion against one another. Lets not forget, its all Christianity...
The Irish situation at the time was also in itself incredibly complex. Far from being a happy country they were at the time constantly at war with each other. The reason Cromwell was 'sent' there (this is an important thing to remember) was that an alliance had been formed that threatened to invade England. An alliance that had already massacred protestant settlers. Does this make it right? no of course not but again you need to look at the whole situation and not just one point of view. He did appear to hate the Irish its true. But this was purely down to their perceived support of the Holy Church of Rome who again were the richest and most powerful authoritarian regime of the time.
Did he effectively start an ethnic cleansing campaign? Yes. Is this taught in schools? Guess what...Yes! (Or at least it was when I studied history).
Cromwell was in some ways a very great man. The establishment of Parliament having primacy over a Regent is not to be underestimated, but he was also at times a vicious dictator. In essence, he was very much a man of his times and arguably was no better or worse than most other rulers of the time.
That said, to compare him to Hitler is utterly astonishing, and I would suggest rather insulting to all the people who were murdered in the name of National Socialism.
All of this info is easily available on line, in fact the wiki page on him is (in this case) pretty good. I'm assuming your thoughts on him are colored by your stay in Ireland? Well if so, I'd suggest that approaching history from only one point of view is extremely dangerous. A good (and more recent case) would be the Palestine/Israel question!
Oh and by the way, just in case you think I'm anti Irish or Catholic (I'm not), my family are Irish and Scottish Catholics, in fact my Mum is still practicing. I myself am not its true, but that's another story...
Here's the link to the wiki page. Have a read... https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oliver_Cromwell
-
By some people in Ireland he is compared to Hitler. Comparing someone to Cromwell is and insult.
I know the catholic church murdered millions but it doesn't give him a reason to hate a group of people for believing something. It's like a westerner claiming to hate all muslims because of a few extremists.
I am no longer catholic but my entire family is. Some effected by Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.
-
Out of interest, how have your family been affected by Cromwell's campaign in Ireland?
-
Some of my ancestors were in Ireland at the time. I don't know the details. I know that i am 1/4 Irish and my ancestors were still in Europe at the time.
-
By some people in Ireland he is compared to Hitler. Comparing someone to Cromwell is and insult.
I know the catholic church murdered millions but it doesn't give him a reason to hate a group of people for believing something. It's like a westerner claiming to hate all muslims because of a few extremists.
I've no doubt that that is the case (although I stand by my statement that I find it highly offensive), and yes, why should anyone use religion as a reason for hatred. However, the fact is that that is how it was at the time. Catholics murdered protestants across europe, and Protestants murdered Catholics. Wars were fought all in the name of ideology.
Do I condone Cromwell's actions in Ireland? Of course not!
However as I said earlier, Cromwell was 'sent' to Ireland to do a job. Which he did, with brutal efficiency!
Make no mistake though, had the alliance invaded England (which again, was planned), and had they been successful they would have subjugated the English in exactly way the same ...such is the fervor of a cause fueled by religious dogma (particularly at that time).
History is complicated, and to only take the view of one side is a dangerous route to take. Indeed, it has been the continued cause of further wars and atrocity's across the century's, as one group seeks to avenge the wrongs of the past.
-
In answer to the title question, I do not agree he is regarded generally as a hero. The history of the English Civil war(or English Revolution as it is often called today) is long and very complex. Like all wars its origins run deep over many years before its start. The war itself was in three stages, and its effects long lasting. No real point in going over its details, as said previously they is much info to be found on the net.
The wars of that time not widely taught or understood today, and in my opinion, far less on the conscience of the British population than say the U.S. civil war is with the American population which still keeps alive the idea of the North and the South, opposing flags, etc.
Cromwell certainly obtained his objectives of the Parliamentarian cause, but was soon out of favour after the wars. After the establishment of the Commonwealth, he ruled England as a totalitarian dictator and staunch Protestant making England a grim place even banning the celebration of Christmas. So much so that after his death in 1558 to reverse the state of England, the Monarchy was re-established in 1660.
Our "hero" Cromwell charged with regicide , hung and be-headed - two years after he died !!
If anything in my opinion Cromwell is remembered well for the legacy of the wars. That legacy being democracy and a Monarchy with limited power. From then onwards Britain became a successful country on the world stage. I remember one historian making a comparison with the English revolution and the French revolution. Even if you are pro-Monarchy, you can be grateful for the English revolution. If a revolution was bound to happen in England through discontent of the power of the monarchy, if it had happened a century and a half later such as the French revolution, we may not have a monarchy at all today like the French. Because of the English revolution we still have the monarchy we have today.
-
Ok my mistake. I loved with an irish man for a month who seemed to tell me a lot about Irish history but was one sided but very emotional.from Cromwell up to the IRA and i heard the entire history but from a very republican prespective.
he seemed to have a grudge with the English.
I have heard the opposite from English people. It's difficult to know what is the truth with so many view points.
-
Firstly I was wasn't going to post in this thread as I know very little about it at all.
Very little of the the English civil war was taught in the Scottish school I went to so I learnt quiet a bit from the posts already made. I certainly don't regard Cromwell as a hero. Putting everything to one side we side he definitely left us a excellent legacy with the house of commons and giving us true democracy. Things have also worked out well with the monarchy having little or no power.
-
It's difficult to know what is the truth with so many view points.
History is a set of facts diluted heavily by opinion. Often re-written and re-interpreted to suit as a justification for a cause. (back to your what causes conflicts topic). History should be black and white, a relay of facts, but it rarely is. I am not saying the Irish perspective is wrong or that the English is right, just that they are perspectives - opinions backed up with selected known events. Parts exaggerated with time, reasons for events ignored when it suits. If you are looking for "truth" - good luck :-\
-
Cromwell wasn't well loved, even by the Protestant working classes. The interregnum didn't last that long before Chuck II was asked to come back.
Hero? Not to me, and I'm no monarchist.
-
So he was thrown out my his own people? That's very interesting.
-
So he was thrown out my his own people? That's very interesting.
And where exactly does Jackroadkill say that...A classic example making an incorrect assumption... Cromwell wasn't thrown out by his own people. He died of natural causes in 1658. His son succeeded him but did not have the support of Parliament and resigned. There was a power struggle and no clear leader emerged, as a result the monarchy was restored in 1662.
Suggest rather than getting everyone elses opinion's that you actually read the facts for yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oliver_Cromwell (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oliver_Cromwell) is a good start - and make your own opinions.
-
I did read the Wiki. He still wasn't so kind to the Irish even on the wiki.
He said that the old king was asked to come back. I don't think Cromwell would approve of that. I just watched a doc about it called Cromwell God's executioner. It was based on fact and terrible.
I also just read that Cromwell was tried for treason by the king. He started out well liked, then became a tyrant and his own people lost respect.
His legacy is murder and he brought on the Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland.
-
Oh I was wondering how long it would be until you managed to link this to recent history in Northern Ireland.
-
It does have a connection. It left bitter feelings on the entire island. He murdered English people and scots as well.
His terrorized his own people.
I just hope to God, NMA is not named in admiration of this bastard.
-
And what happens if they are named in admiration of this person?
-
I still like them but I read in an interview that the band was named because it's simply a good name. Sullivan is an irish name too.
-
There is no one truth. Even with facts in place there are interpretations and perspectives. This goes for any subject you care to name.
-
There is no one truth. Even with facts in place there are interpretations and perspectives. This goes for any subject you care to name.
Very well put!
-
i've got one resounding fact
cromwell was an evil evil man who was prepared to carry out the orders of the crown against irish catholics. there is nothing positive that can be said about him. there may be facts but they should never be used as some sort of respect since such a despot does not deserve it.
and frankly what cromwell did set the scene for atrocities against catholics until recent times. have a look at this. fully verified admissions outlining the level of support British intelligence and occupying forces gave to loyalist paramilitaries in norther ireland with the single purpose of killing catholics.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10431974/]http://www.thejournal.ie/what-we-learned-from-collusion-documentary-2165163-Jun2015/[/url
not sure if you can get the player working where you are - [url]http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10431974/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/what-we-learned-from-collusion-documentary-2165163-Jun2015/[/url
not sure if you can get the player working where you are - [url)
i wonder when this will get into the history books as the real interpretation
-
The Irish opinion is completely different. I just watched a doc about Cromwell in Wexford.
It was horrendous.
It seems every discussion about irish/ english history gets so passionate.
Since most here are English you often hear one side.
In Ireland comparing someone to Cromwell is a horrible insult.
The Irish still say "the curse of Cromwell upon you" as a horrible insult.
I understand why the IRA topic was so passionate but facts prove that this was an evil man.
if the irish still hate him so much to this day it means he impacted them horribly.
I believe I read that he wiped out a fith of the population and sold others into slavery.
-
People have written here that history is seen/warped through the eyes of those who see it from their viewpoint. I completely agree with them.
There seems to be some sort of undercurrent here that because someone here has heard from one perspective how beastly we English are it must be true. I've got news, Cromwell died over 350 years ago, I'm pretty sure most of us were not alive then. However the IRA to me is over for now, and that was like yesterday.
How far do we go back, shall I write a diatribe on Norse Activity around the 800s and the raping, looting and taking of slaves from here, and hold the Scandinavians evil?
I'm not sure what this is about. Bash us all around the heads until we agree we are all bad people because Cromwell came from here?
-
I never once said anything negative about the English of today. Never once. Some chose to perceive it that way. I was told as a kid by my grandfather how the British marched into Scotland and terrorised our ancestors. They did the same to our Irish ancestors.
How on earth do you want me to side with the British puritans?
It's fact that they terrorized people hundreds of years ago. And even more recently.
But so did many other countries in the world. It's not a criticism of the English.
I am in Cronwall and very much enjoy the people here.
If someone criticized the treatment of the native Americans I would agree.
I am from one of the most critisized nations in the world and I would not take criticism personally.
-
The IRA is a different subject. And era.
-
This serves to illustrate that history, although unchangeable, may be shown in different lights dependent on who is doing the telling of the story.
Amandistan, I'm not being confrontational towards you, or rubbishing what you have been told when I say this: you have been given one view of a huge slice of European history from one source. The view is highly subjective, (rightly or wrongly) biased, incomplete and very emotional.
Oliver Cromwell, be he saint or sinner, did not just decide one day to invade Ireland off the bat, persecute the Catholic people that he found there and set the course for the suppression and denigration of the Irish people for centuries. It was all part of a much, much more complicated and turbulent period in European history; I say European because it involved the quarrels, religious intolerances, successions and political manoeuvrings of each of the major (and several of the minor) states whose influence was waxing and waning in Europe (and also in the New World) at the time.
If you would like to read further into this issue, I can suggest Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver trilogy, which is a historical fiction, accurate where points of historical fact occur, that will keep you going for months, showing you in minute detail how turbulent, violent and confusing those times were.
-
Can anyone suggest any documentaries on the subject? I just don't have time to read up on the subject. A 1 to 3 hour film, i would have time to watch.
-
Three hours just isn't enough time to even scratch the surface, I'm afraid.
-
A, to use an American expression, you are asking for the 'Cliff Notes' (did I get that right?) version of history when you ask for a brief documentary to explain it all to you... this is a contentious issue, made more so when anyone who was actually there is a few centuries dead. Acres of academic papers and historical research have been devoted to it. I admit that I'm not historically educated enough to understand it all and I bow down to the wisdom of anyone smarter than me. In fact, this thread has given me some ideas about further reading!
Jeez, everything that is happening nowadays is re-written pretty much as it happens thanks to technological wonders... how we can we possibly wade through the reams of conjecture and opinion and dusty, tattered old scripts to reach a 100% TRUE opinion?
-
Three hours just isn't enough time to even scratch the surface, I'm afraid.
How true my friend.
And isn't it so "modern" these days for people to want to get the précis, watch the 1/2 hour film or have someone twitter it than actually do some reading and research! ::)
-
Read read and read some more.
-
I never once said anything negative about the English of today. Never once. Some chose to perceive it that way. I was told as a kid by my grandfather how the British marched into Scotland and terrorised our ancestors. They did the same to our Irish ancestors.
How on earth do you want me to side with the British puritans?
It's fact that they terrorized people hundreds of years ago. And even more recently.
But so did many other countries in the world. It's not a criticism of the English.
I am in Cronwall and very much enjoy the people here.
You've mixed up quite a few things here. You say the British "marched" into Scotland, but Britain IS Scotland, Wales, England and N Ireland. so which is it? And to take a tiny part of one bit of history, completely ignore atrocities committed by others (including the Scots and Irish), and then conclude it is all one sided is a bit strange.
Your attitude to your own country is also strange if you don't mind me saying. You tell us the US is evil, oppressive, but forget how much the US has given the world, including being by far the biggest donor of foreign aid. The UK is second by the way.
All I am trying to say is that all countries have done things they were not proud of, but we also need to look at positives as well.
-
Well, It's not that i don't want to read or am too lazy. It's that i read a page, my mind wanders off and i read it 6 more times. Then i do it 1,000 more pages. Unless i am very, very interested in the topic and can hyperfocus. Sadly that is very few topics. So sadly it's documentary or nothing. I haven't completed a book in two years but have started many. Amphetamine can help me read but it makes me very shaky and nervous.
The difference between Great Britain and the UK are often confusing to outsiders.
Yes but back at that time was Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland considered Britain or did they have their own identities? I ask because I often don't hear people refer to the English army. It's always British.
I will admit to the IRA being a terrorist group now. With more research i find they actually are worse than the British army. I did not know that they tortured their own members who they thought betrayed them. I somehow thought they were freedom fighters but not anymore. It was actually a film that taught me this.
-
Well, it sounds like you are not going to learn the history of the English civil war. Maybe a lucky escape, - if you are not interested it could prove very boring. But,, please learn from experiences like this. If someone gives you an opinion on something, remember it is an opinion, not necessarily a fact. Every coin has two sides. If someone tells you a story about things that happened, remember they are only telling you the parts they want you to hear.
-
Historical events can’t be studied in isolation without the proper context.
Nothing is going to do justice to such a complicated event other than a lot of time spent doing research using various sources. I wouldn't say Cromwell is regarded as a hero, but rather that his historical importance can't be denied.
Cromwell and the Parliamentarians moved against an increasingly authoritarian King Charles I who sought to disregard English law and establish an absolute monarchy akin to what existed at the time in Spain and France, both Catholic countries and sworn enemies of England. This doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings is opposed to English Constitutionalism (Parliament) which is why the Parliament wouldn't take it sitting down.
By the 1630s and 1640s Anglicanism and Presbyterianism had become firmly established in England and Scotland. Anglicanism had rooted in Ireland, but not with great popularity; Presbyterianism in Ulster was more successful. What came with the more radical Puritanism of the Parliamentarians was an ingrained disdain for Charles I's policies, so there was very little support for his plans of grandeur for himself at the expense of everyone else. This built a firm enough platform for Cromwell to challenge him, and the monarchy itself, successfully. Charles I's reign had already de-stablilised England, Scotland and Ireland for various reasons and there was widespread discontent.
In Ireland, the Old English (settlers from the Norman period) and Irish Gaels took the side of Charles I and formed a "Catholic Alliance" against Cromwell and the Parliamentarians (The Confederation of Kilkenny). Why? Because of their disdain for the radical Puritanism of Cromwell. That, in combination with the recent massacre of Protestants in Ulster in 1641, convinced Cromwell that Ireland, in particular, posed an equal threat to the English Parliament on par with Charles I. So, the New Model Army landed at Ringsend in Dublin on 15 August, 1649, to lead the offensive. They might well have been signing Vengeance with lyrical modifications, given Cromwell's personal desire to avenge the events of 1641 in Ulster.
Cromwell, no doubt, was heavy-handed by today's standards. The idea was that if a town surrendered to the military victor, then its inhabitants were spared. If they didn’t surrender, then they would be massacred. Cromwell massacred those in Drogheda, Wexford, Waterford and Clonmel, but spared those in Kilkenny, New Ross and Carlow who agreed to his terms.
Cromwell’s effect in Ireland was to confiscate land held by Catholics and ban the religion outright. The religion was not only sympathetic to Charles I (who was not Catholic by the way, but wanted to use Catholics in Ireland to support his vision), but also to the monarchies in Spain and France. Religious wars were standard behaviour for the time; The Thirty Years’ War had only recently finished. The Treaty of Augsburg, signed after the war, paved the way for religious harmony, if you could call it such, by expecting citizens to adopt the same religion as the ruler. It accepted the permanent division of Christendom within the Holy Roman Empire and eventually beyond...
Cuius regio, eius religio
Only Ireland didn’t follow the example of converting to the religion of the victor.
-
But the Protestantism was in Ulster due to occupying the land of Catholics from past generation.
So the logic that Cromwell had a reason should apply the same to why the Catholics felt the need to kill protestants.
From my understanding Scotland once had a Catholic population in the highlands. any time someone occupies another's land will mean conflict.
You can learn a lot by documentaries actually. A person with ADHD should not be withheld knowledge because it may take a yesr to finish a massive book.
-
Scotland had a catholic population but Scotland's take up of Protestantism as espoused by the likes of Knox was more to do with social justice rather than a result of any invasion.
-
But the Protestantism was in Ulster due to occupying the land of Catholics from past generation.
So the logic that Cromwell had a reason should apply the same to why the Catholics felt the need to kill protestants.
From my understanding Scotland once had a Catholic population in the highlands. any time someone occupies another's land will mean conflict.
You can learn a lot by documentaries actually. A person with ADHD should not be withheld knowledge because it may take a yesr to finish a massive book.
Don't forget that a lot of the Scots in Scotland had ancestors who had invaded from... Ireland. In Roman times the "Scotti" lived in Ireland.
Another point worth remembering is that Ireland had never been a united country, save for a brief period under Brian Boru (11th century), when unity was enforced by conquest. Quite when the concept of an Irish nation state came about I don't know. Constant bickering between the smaller kingdoms led to invasions, wars, invitations to settle and so on. It's not a surprise to find that Protestantism has taken hold in parts of Ireland
As an aside if you want to remember the difference between GB and UK etc, the term Great Britain refers to the larger of the two main British Isles. The full name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
-
The difference between Great Britain and the UK are often confusing to outsiders.
Yes but back at that time was Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland considered Britain or did they have their own identities? I ask because I often don't hear people refer to the English army. It's always British.
It is actually confusing to many British people too in fact ! My understanding for what it's worth is that "Britain" historically referred to the union between England and Wales. Then in 1707 the union was extended with Scotland, and it became "Great Britain". The "Great" part is referring to the increased size of the nation, rather than anything to do with the country being great, as in really good/brilliant etc, as some would believe.
The current official title of the nation is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This would indicate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but not part of Great Britain ! Though Northern Irish sports people usually compete under the banner of GB in international events. So it's not tremendously straight forward !
-
The current official title of the nation is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This would indicate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but not part of Great Britain ! Though Northern Irish sports people usually compete under the banner of GB in international events. So it's not tremendously straight forward !
Well dont worry, I give it 5 years before it all breaks apart anyway! ;)
-
Yes, isn't Scotland going to get Independence?
To be fair, i was told "when the Brits weren't there to **** up Ireland ,the Irish did it them-*******-selves. There was a ******* civil War."
I was also taught various ways to use the F-u-c-k (since the forum edits the word.)
Before visiting i didn't know **** all about how to use the word. Now i do. :)
-
Yes, isn't Scotland going to get Independence?
Scotland had a referendum on whether to become independent or not last year. The vote was open to citizens living in Scotland only. The majority voted not to become independent, and stay part of the United Kingdom. There is still a strong independence movement though. Time will tell.
-
Though Northern Irish sports people usually compete under the banner of GB in international events. So it's not tremendously straight forward !
Norhern Irish athletes have a choice whether to compete for "Team GB" or The ROI team in most sports.
In Rugby Union the Irish team is the ROI and NI.
-
Yes, isn't Scotland going to get Independence?
Scotland had a referendum on whether to become independent or not last year. The vote was open to citizens living in Scotland only. The majority voted not to become independent, and stay part of the United Kingdom. There is still a strong independence movement though. Time will tell.
I reckon they will be independent by 2025 - maybe sooner if Cameron misjudges things and takes the UK out of the EU
-
Yes, isn't Scotland going to get Independence?
Scotland had a referendum on whether to become independent or not last year. The vote was open to citizens living in Scotland only. The majority voted not to become independent, and stay part of the United Kingdom. There is still a strong independence movement though. Time will tell.
I reckon they will be independent by 2025 - maybe sooner if Cameron misjudges things and takes the UK out of the EU
Well two things there.
To be fair to Cameron, it won't be him "misjudging" it will be the British people voting. Democracy. I for one am on the fence on this one, but I'm certainly not going to vote one way to keep the Scots happy, I'm going to vote with what I think is right. For now I'm undecided, I'm going to listen to the arguments and look at the data.
Secondly, I think you are optimistic. I think the Scots are on their way out now. The majority vote to stay in the UK was tiny and the forces for going are at work 24/7. Personally I think they should go as we seem to be in a loveless marriage at the moment; neither England nor Scotland seem happy!
-
Ok we have gone way of track but nothing new there.
I think most Scots would like to remain part of Europe and Cameron and co do have a lot to do with it, they are generally hated in Scotland and they aren't doing themselves any favours with their current policies. The labour party have lost their way leaving the snp as the only socialist alternative. Will independence happen who knows I think I forum of federalism will
-
I honestly don't think Scotland has the nerve to go it alone...nor do I think it's actually a good idea. All 'marriages' have their ups and downs and now is no different.
What I can see happening for the foreseeable future is that the SNP in Scotland takes a page out of the Parti Quebecois manifesto in Canada. In other words, keep voting for an independence-oriented party, but don't really swallow the whole independence is the way forward mantra. In doing so, Quebec has pulled a lot of power towards itself through concessions, but is smart enough to realise it would be cooked if faced with independence.
A lot of people in Scotland are also fully aware just how bad the post-independence blues and subsequent economic meltdown was in Ireland.
The romantic notion of the nation state loses its way in an increasingly centralised EU.
-
To be fair, i was told "when the Brits weren't there to **** up Ireland ,the Irish did it them-*******-selves. There was a ******* civil War."
Well, no sooner had Ireland begun the road towards independence after the Easter Rising when De Valera and Collins split ranks and initiated a brutal Civil War which helped entrench partition.
-
I was thinking about this and if Cromwell would have gotten his wish to wipe out the catholics many people would not have been born. I good bit of us with Irish ancestry would have not been born because out ancestors would be all a victim of genocide. I would not and anyone with catholic ancestors.
The same with the muslims killed in the crusades and the protestants.