Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?
Scroll to see replies
Sorry to bump this but I've been doing a lot of research on Cromwell.
Firstly many of the things you hear about Cromwell are pure fabrications. He did not commit genocide in Ireland and a lot of the exploits people talk about there a pure nonsense. For instance people always bring up the massacre at Drogheda. What they don't mention is that 2,700 of the 3,500 killed were actually British royalists who had fled to Ireland and formed an alliance with the rebels, the rest were rebels or civilians who had taken up arms, all had the chance to surrender and were warned if they did not the consequences would be dire. Cromwell actually hung a number of his own troops during the campaign because they had gone against his orders and persecuted Irish civilians. Of course the Irish will feel bitter about the fact that Cromwell dished out such a one sided battering but such biased accounts should always be viewed with some scepticism. We also conveniently never seem to hear about the 20,000 settlers who were massacred by the Irish rebels and unlike Cromwell they did endorse the killing of women, children and unarmed civilians.
Secondly he did not ban Christmas this was an act of parliament in an attempt to eliminate crypto-Catholic superstitions.
He did not want complete power however he had no other alternative but to take on the role of lord protector. British politics was in a mess with in fighting and bickering and the only way for Cromwell to set this right was to take power. He refused the crown in 1657 something that people just after power and personal glory would not have done.
He also laid the foundations for the British Empire with the rise of British sea power, taking Jamaica from Spain securing Britain's dominance in the sugar industry and allowing Jews back into England stimulating economic growth and opening up new trade links.
Cromwell was one of the greatest Britons ever born and it's nothing short of a travesty that he doesn't get the recognition he deserves because of Irish sentiments many of which stem from lies.
Firstly many of the things you hear about Cromwell are pure fabrications. He did not commit genocide in Ireland and a lot of the exploits people talk about there a pure nonsense. For instance people always bring up the massacre at Drogheda. What they don't mention is that 2,700 of the 3,500 killed were actually British royalists who had fled to Ireland and formed an alliance with the rebels, the rest were rebels or civilians who had taken up arms, all had the chance to surrender and were warned if they did not the consequences would be dire. Cromwell actually hung a number of his own troops during the campaign because they had gone against his orders and persecuted Irish civilians. Of course the Irish will feel bitter about the fact that Cromwell dished out such a one sided battering but such biased accounts should always be viewed with some scepticism. We also conveniently never seem to hear about the 20,000 settlers who were massacred by the Irish rebels and unlike Cromwell they did endorse the killing of women, children and unarmed civilians.
Secondly he did not ban Christmas this was an act of parliament in an attempt to eliminate crypto-Catholic superstitions.
He did not want complete power however he had no other alternative but to take on the role of lord protector. British politics was in a mess with in fighting and bickering and the only way for Cromwell to set this right was to take power. He refused the crown in 1657 something that people just after power and personal glory would not have done.
He also laid the foundations for the British Empire with the rise of British sea power, taking Jamaica from Spain securing Britain's dominance in the sugar industry and allowing Jews back into England stimulating economic growth and opening up new trade links.
Cromwell was one of the greatest Britons ever born and it's nothing short of a travesty that he doesn't get the recognition he deserves because of Irish sentiments many of which stem from lies.
Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb
Villain! Genocide in Ireland! 
English and Scottish Protestant settlers were being slaughtered by the natives. Was Cromwell to ignore this?
Original post by jhnj92
Down with the f*cking monarchy, Cromwell deserved his place in British rule, made sure that Parliament was seen as a significant institution, not an event. A hero.
What's the difference? Cromwell made himself Lord Protector: King in all except name. He had his son succeed him. He believed he was on a mission from God. He dismissed parliament by force when he didn't like the outcome.
(edited 13 years ago)
From what I remember from A - Level, wasn't he a great tactician? The New Model Army was it called? Like one of the first people to use soldiers who had risen through the ranks instead of using Nobles as commanders etc.
I remember some historians saying that he went to far in the way he treated Charles, and how in death the British saw Charles as a Martyr even though he wasn't a great King.
I remember some historians saying that he went to far in the way he treated Charles, and how in death the British saw Charles as a Martyr even though he wasn't a great King.
Original post by ash-corbett-collins
Discuss 
Villain! He treated the Irish appallingly.
What have I been negged for? Stating how he murdered people based solely on their religion?
(edited 13 years ago)
Ooh, I did this for my A2 History coursework!
I argued that he was a hero of liberty. He allowed the Jews back into England (granted it was for economic reasons but it would help England in the long run), he'd liberated England from the monarchy, with his aims being to heal and settle the country after the Civil War and mismanagement of just about everything by Charles I just to name a few things. He gave England the stability that it needed, until his son came along and ballsed it all up but that's another story for a different time.
I do accept that what went on in Ireland was awful but was it really any different to the kind of warfare and massacres that went on in that period of history? Warfare was pretty primitive and it was mostly about destroying the enemy, even if it did mean ripping them limb from limb.
He wasn't a stupid man at all. In my eyes he was the King without being the King if you understand what I mean. My history is pretty sketchy since I've not looked at it for nearly three years!
I argued that he was a hero of liberty. He allowed the Jews back into England (granted it was for economic reasons but it would help England in the long run), he'd liberated England from the monarchy, with his aims being to heal and settle the country after the Civil War and mismanagement of just about everything by Charles I just to name a few things. He gave England the stability that it needed, until his son came along and ballsed it all up but that's another story for a different time.
I do accept that what went on in Ireland was awful but was it really any different to the kind of warfare and massacres that went on in that period of history? Warfare was pretty primitive and it was mostly about destroying the enemy, even if it did mean ripping them limb from limb.
He wasn't a stupid man at all. In my eyes he was the King without being the King if you understand what I mean. My history is pretty sketchy since I've not looked at it for nearly three years!
Original post by Laurah5498
Ooh, I did this for my A2 History coursework!
I argued that he was a hero of liberty. He allowed the Jews back into England (granted it was for economic reasons but it would help England in the long run), he'd liberated England from the monarchy, with his aims being to heal and settle the country after the Civil War and mismanagement of just about everything by Charles I just to name a few things. He gave England the stability that it needed, until his son came along and ballsed it all up but that's another story for a different time.
I do accept that what went on in Ireland was awful but was it really any different to the kind of warfare and massacres that went on in that period of history? Warfare was pretty primitive and it was mostly about destroying the enemy, even if it did mean ripping them limb from limb.
He wasn't a stupid man at all. In my eyes he was the King without being the King if you understand what I mean. My history is pretty sketchy since I've not looked at it for nearly three years!
I argued that he was a hero of liberty. He allowed the Jews back into England (granted it was for economic reasons but it would help England in the long run), he'd liberated England from the monarchy, with his aims being to heal and settle the country after the Civil War and mismanagement of just about everything by Charles I just to name a few things. He gave England the stability that it needed, until his son came along and ballsed it all up but that's another story for a different time.
I do accept that what went on in Ireland was awful but was it really any different to the kind of warfare and massacres that went on in that period of history? Warfare was pretty primitive and it was mostly about destroying the enemy, even if it did mean ripping them limb from limb.
He wasn't a stupid man at all. In my eyes he was the King without being the King if you understand what I mean. My history is pretty sketchy since I've not looked at it for nearly three years!
Oliver was a great man, just like his great grand uncle, Thomas Cromwell
Both of them were idealists with desires to grant England the freedoms which the monarchy had always repudiated (such as your example of toleration of Jews). Oliver did impose his Puritanical views on the nation through banning brothels, taverns, theatres and Christmas, but I believe it shows the extent of his piety and integrity.He was also a brilliant general and naturally charismatic man. He often inspired his troops with biblically inspired words, such as: "Take courage to do the work of the Lord". He was also the first Englishman to successfully invade and then retain Scotland; Edward I had invaded it in the 13th century, but he was unable to assert control and authority over the Scots. Oliver defeated the seemingly invincible Dutch fleet, too, which Charles II would later fail to do on many occasions. England under Cromwell was a military power that could easily match France, Spain and the Ottoman Empire.
As for his massacres of the Irish, I fear that he was perhaps too blinded by bigotry. He certainly viewed Catholics as a political force with a conspiracy to corrupt English prosperity (as the English monarchs thought of Jews, ironically). However, we must acknowledge that the extreme methods he used were merely reactions to the extreme world in which he lived and ruled in.
Politically speaking, he profoundly influenced the need for democracy. The powers and policies of the monarch were never the same after Cromwell. Charles I had proven himself to be an incompetent tyrant, and so by deposing him Oliver helped to crush the myth of monarchy (the common people literally believed in that period that monarchs possessed healing powers).
Go Oliver!
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by princessnavi22
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!
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!
How is this a bad thing?
Original post by jhnj92
He was not a tyrant like Charles I, he was not obstinate, aloof and an insecure figure. Cromwell promoted religious toleration, what Charles did was bring religious fears by showing interest in a religion that showed traits of Catholicism (can't remember the name, laudianism I think) which led to fear of popery. He did dismiss the rump, but only because the rift between the rump and the army was so wide that Cromwell had to take a stand on the side of the army and reform, due to the lack of the rump's progress. That isn't to say that Cromwell was interested in becoming a military dictator, he did seek another parliament as a means of settlement. All Charles did was use Parliament for money, and abused his prerogative powers even further.
Arminianism
He was a hero until he became drunk on power and betrayed the levellers and other groups. Before that he got rid of a corrupt, tyrannical, absolutist monarchy - a king who thought he was above English law. He also cemented the rule of english law and parliamentary sovereingty in england, NOT the rule of a Divine king (although this was not confirmed formally until 1688). The early stages of the English republic were very good, England became the most advanced state in western europe, but as I said Cromwell became dunk on power. Dont believe the **** about what he supposedly did in Ireland. He was very much fighting a Royalist army in ireland. every garrison was given every opportunity to surrender and the supposed atrocities committed were nothing compared to others of the same time period
(edited 13 years ago)
I think he was neither a hero nor a villain. From what I learnt he was simply trying to do what he be lived to be the best course of action. But then again so did Hitler. Oliver Cromwell created an almost military dictatorship using the threat of force to create a conformist society. But the society that Cromwell created wasn't a bad one, it was safe, much of the population were still scared of Catholicism due to the past (Bloody Mary, the Spanish Armada, Guido Fawkes plot etc.) so in reality Cromwell saw himself as doing them a favour, saving them from damnation and the Catholics. His military tactics were questionable and it was obvious that he did not have the same tolerance for the Catholic faith as he did with the other factions of Protestantism; he slaughtered hundreds at Basing House where e refused to negotiate, and again in Dunbar and Drogheda. But what people seem to forget is that Cromwell ordered that no unarmed man, woman or child should be hurt. In fact Cromwell hung two of his own men for stealing a peasant woman's chicken. He fought for parliament but when he got to control parliament he did not find what he wanted which resulted in 4 parliaments being forcibly dissolved with the threat of the army.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Immortality
- The Alphabet Game!
- Aspects of tragedy in othello a level english
- Spanish IRP Help
- which college to apply to?
- AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 1 - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Can someone assess my two paragraphs for Eng lit?
- Can you recommend some British movies that you like?
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- help with villain motivation
- Anyone willing to critique my Q5 English Language GCSE practice?
- AQA History A-level English Revolution Predictions 2023
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 2 (9ET0 02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Which is better: Mustard or Olives?
- Accommodation Manchester
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- Anyone experienced willing to critique my GCSE Q5 of English Language Paper 1?
- How to deal with being painted as the villain of their story?
- Making Othello statment question-A level english literature aqa b
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
