Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain? Watch

Poll: Hero or Villain?
Hero - Down with the monarchy! (33)
32.04%
Villain - As if he banned Christmas! (69)
66.99%
Who?! (1)
0.97%
username291885
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
Discuss
0
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
Villain! Genocide in Ireland! :mad:
1
reply
jammythedodger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 years ago
#3
There aren't many redeeming feautres to Cromwell.
Genocide as somesaid above.
Military government and end of parliamenet (ironic, eh?)
Extremist minority religious rule

so yeah, I so don't know why there's a statue of him outside Parliament...
0
reply
princessnavi22
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
Villain..

He's pretty much the reason that the monarchy no longer really has any true power!

I hate Cromwell with a passion, and think it's ridiculous that his statue is outside the houses of parliament, makes me angry every time I walk past it!
6
reply
Psyk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 years ago
#5
Probably the closest thing to Hitler that Britain has.
3
reply
Cesare Borgia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 years ago
#6
He was influential in the creation of the New Model Army, the beginnings of the modern British Army.
0
reply
Liquidus Zeromus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 years ago
#7
What a hero. Overthrew the monarchy and banned christmas :mwuaha:
1
reply
Lefty Leo
Badges: 10
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
Misguided religious fundamentalist rather.
reply
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#9
Report 9 years ago
#9
I'm a republican, but Cromwell was an authoritarian fundamentalist, so I'm going to have to go with villain.
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 years ago
#10
Quite a few pro's and con's.

Sure over throwing the monarchy was good but what he did in Ireland was pretty awful.
0
reply
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
Villain.
0
reply
iwilson03
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
Not a villian or a hero.

A dictator yes, but his 'terrible acts of cruelty' aren't exactly comparable to the likes of Hitler and you have to remember these were different times. There were many new freedoms under his rule. For instance 'dissenting' or 'puritan' groups (puritanism was kind of used as a term to lump together all the Protestant groups that didn't conform to the High Church) were allowed to practise freely.
Yes Christmas was banned, but not by Oliver personally - it was done by Parliament and simply enforced during his years as Lord Protector (until 1658).

He also set down the strongest foundations for the British Empire and for the British Army, tied us into stronger alliances with fellow Protestant nations in Europe, and re-admitted the Jews into England in 1656.

What he did in Ireland was indeed terrible but there was some justification for this. The following outlines that viewpoint and can be found here.

"
On 10 September 1649, a week after arriving at the town's walls,
Cromwell summonsed the Governor of Drogheda to surrender within 24 hours.
His message was clear: no surrender, no quarter. This was fully in accord with
the laws of war. The granting of quarter to those who laid down their arms in the
English Civil War was the exception to the general European rule. Indeed, the
tradition in Ireland was to deny quarter even when it had been promised.
Cromwell cannot be called a war criminal in those circumstances. Immediately
after Drogheda, Cromwell summonsed DundaIk to surrender and, when it did,
kept his troops under tight control.
By the time he reached Wexford, three more towns had surrendered on
terms to himself or his officers. Governor Synott of Wexford knew what to expect.
Cromwell's offer to him was to surrender the town and his weapons, whereupon
the officers would be imprisoned, the common soldiers free to return to their
homes, and the citizens guaranteed freedom from plunder. Or to refuse, and,
under the laws of war, put all life and property at Cromwell's mercy. There is a
dispute about whether the negotiations - which the Governor was spinning out in
the hope that relieving forces might arrive - had formally been broken off when
Cromwell stormed the town. The consequences of the storming were according
to the laws of war then prevailing.
8
The second line of defence is Cromwell's general restraint. He was in
Ireland for nine months and took 28 towns. He denied quarter and sacked only
Drogheda and Wexford; he offered generous terms elsewhere and honoured
them to the letter whenever they were accepted. Most remarkable was his
restraint at ClonmeI. He lost more than 2,000 men in a foiled assault there. He
then took the town on terms and honoured them, although perhaps 200
retreating soldiers were chased and killed.
Thirdly, when he wrote that the sack of Drogheda would 'tend to prevent
the effusion of blood for the future', he meant it. It may be that Drogheda and
Wexford were his Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the application of an economy of evil
to save more lives in the long run. In the 17th century, as in the 20th century, that
is a morally contested view. But it has not led to trials for war crimes. The
intention was honourable.
Fourthly, the evidence for civilian deaths is far less clear than the evidence
of the killing in cold blood of disarmed and surrendered combatants. There is
only circumstantial and hearsay evidence that civilians - other than clergy - were
killed in cold blood. To convict Cromwell of war crimes requires evidence of civilians
killed in cold blood.
Fifthly, there is a tendency to blame Cromwell for all the horrors in Ireland
in the 1650s. There were certainly atrocities after his departure. General
Fleetwood introduced a policy of reprisals which pre-echoes Nazi cruelty. If an
English soldier was killed by snipers or Tories (bandits), then the nearest
community was given 24 or 48 hours to hand over those responsible for
summary execution, or they were all seized and transported into slavery. The
whole English political and military establishment in Ireland can be blamed for
this. But Cromwell cannot. There is no evidence he approved of the policies and
plenty of evidence that he sent his son, Henry Cromwell, to govern Ireland in
order to mitigate their severity.
Furthermore, he worked to ameliorate the effects of the Land Settlement,
abandoning the policy of mass transportation. While Protector, no one was
executed under the Act of Settlement, and the policy of enforced movement to
9
the west was largely abandoned. There is a case for saying that when Cromwell
was Lord Protector, he treated former Irish royalists and Confederates much as
he treated former English royalists and Catholics. But since there were proportionately
far more of them in Ireland, their continued suffering is more evident."
2
reply
MillieTheNerd
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
Oliver cronwell was easily a Villian.
We know this from 4 differnt pieces of evidence:

. Puritan- He band Christmas, drinking, dancing and all other forms of fun if you were puritan or not.

.Dictator- As soon as the King was beheaded, Oliver put him self in charge. Anything he said, went.

.Hippocrite- He himself said that 1 person should not have complete power- and that is why the Kind was beheaded. But, as soon as he died, Oliver cronwell gave himself complete power over the country- shutting down parliment and this and that. And when people started to find out about his ways, he throw them in jail like the King did.

.Everybody hated him, when he dides they dug him up and cut of his head then placed it on a spire. Parliment only supported him beacuse he hated the King.

End of.
0
reply
JK471993
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
Morrissey sums of my opinion of the man pretty well:

I've been dreaming of a time when
The English are sick to death of Labour
And Tories, and spit upon the name of Oliver Cromwell
And denounce this royal line that still salute him
And will salute him forever



Although I did love Richard Harris' portrayal of the man in Cromwell!
0
reply
Marie203
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
Bit of a hypocrit, took down the monarchy then basically took his position at the top with monarch-like power.
Definetly villian.
0
reply
Great Lord Xenu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
Villain! Genocide in Ireland! :mad:
Hero! Genocide in Ireland!

But seriously, he was neither, just one pretty badass fellow.
2
reply
Democracy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
He was a very good orator:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!
Charles I certainly needed to be taking down a peg or two, so props to Cromwell for doing that. But replacing a "divinely mandated" monarchy with a puritanical Commonwealth hardly makes him a republican hero in the Enlightenment era sense of the word.

By today's standards certainly a villain but then again so was everyone at the time.
0
reply
monkeyonthelake
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
I don't think it's easy to label him one or the other. At the time he was regarded strongly as both. However it's important to remember that by the time Cromwell came into any position of power Charles I was already fighting Parliament. It was John Pym who really stood up for Parliament against Charles' personal rule and taxes.

He also caused the country's instability and return of the monarch by appointing his son Lord Protector when he died. After his death the commonwealth sort of fell to pieces. (Hence them asking for Charles II's return).

Cromwell's conquest of Ireland and the Massacre at Drogheda sort of sum up the side of the argument against him though.

I'd call him more of a villain than a Hero... but there are still issues with this claim. I would prefer to do a bit more research before making such a statement generally but seeing as this isn't an essay I will leave it at that.
0
reply
Jim-ie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
Personally, a villain of the highest order.

However, can recognise that the very foundations of the British system today come from his changes. Not that it provides an excuse for his brutal regime not just against Ireland but against his own people.

I genuinely believe he wasnt all there in the head.
0
reply
StarsAreFixed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
Villian. The atrocities performed under his authority in Ireland far outweigh whatever good he did in England, not that I would class the execution of a King as good, though obviously Charles had his faults. Also agree he wasn't all there. The exaggeration of reports claiming 200,000 Protestants had been killed in Ireland instead of 20,000 (note: by the people dispossessed of their land) has a lot to answer for.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Is the plastic tax enough to protect the environment?

Yes (13)
5.58%
No (220)
94.42%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise