400th Anniversary of the Birth of Oliver Cromwell Watch

The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
We celebrate the meaningless St George's Day, and completely ignore the 416th birthday of one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived, and who overthrew a heinous tyranny, granting the people of this country their liberties.

Absolute disgrace.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#2
(Ignore the title, I meant 416th. His 400th birthday was in 1999, when I was born).
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
He was a traitor, a religious fundamentalist and a cold-blooded butcher of thousands.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by L i b)
He was a traitor, a religious fundamentalist and a cold-blooded butcher of thousands.
A traitor to who? A tyrant and a criminal?

A religious fundamentalist? I suppose, but he did permit freedom of religion (unless you were Catholic of course, but to be fair, the host of Catholic kings we've had brought it upon themselves).

He did butcher thousands. In that, he was no different from any other general asserting his control over a territory full of warlords and rebels. If it wasn't for him, the UK as we know it wouldn't exist. You should be thanking him right now.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
I'm a republican and even I prefer Charles II
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Davij038)
I'm a republican and even I prefer Charles II
You aren't a republican then.
0
reply
Magnus Taylor
Badges: 15
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by L i b)
He was a traitor, a religious fundamentalist and a cold-blooded butcher of thousands.

He was arguably one of the few that sought to grant Liberty of conscience, he also turned England into a powerhouse
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by The Dictator)
A traitor to who? A tyrant and a criminal?
Well, given that the Civil War erupted because of Charles I's perceived lack of respect for Parliament, why was Cromwell allowed to get away with doing the exact same thing when he both purged the Long Parliament and dissolved the Rump Parliament by force?

And then created a Nominated Assembly to do his bidding, which didn't co-operate, so he dissolved that! Then we had the Rule of the Major Generals. Compared to Cromwell's rule, Charles I was a dream. No wonder the monarchy was restored.

Of course, there's a long-running historical debate how much of this happened by will of Cromwell or despite what he wanted. There's a saying I read somewhere that the architects of the English Republic of 1649 were the most unenthusiastic republicans in history!

A religious fundamentalist? I suppose, but he did permit freedom of religion (unless you were Catholic of course, but to be fair, the host of Catholic kings we've had brought it upon themselves).
England had not had a Catholic monarch since Queen Mary. Charles I was a firm Anglican.

He did butcher thousands. In that, he was no different from any other general asserting his control over a territory full of warlords and rebels. If it wasn't for him, the UK as we know it wouldn't exist. You should be thanking him right now.
I think the Irish would like to have a word with you about Drogheda.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by L i b)
He was a traitor, a religious fundamentalist and a cold-blooded butcher of thousands.
By 'traitor', do you mean to the King? You may have heard, there was a very minor disagreement at the time about what it meant to be loyal to the King. :teehee:
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Magnus Taylor)
He was arguably one of the few that sought to grant Liberty of conscience, he also turned England into a powerhouse
Another way of looking at it is that he founded the wicked, corrupt and cynical British Empire, began the process of industrialising slavery, treated many of his former supporters and allies like dirt, attacked and destroyed a nascent true democracy of citizen rights and equality and promoted a narrow, bigoted version of Protestantism whilst at the same time driving others to America who could have contributed a lot to his own country. He tyrannised the other countries of these islands and adopted all the trappings of the Monarchy he had previously come to despise.

Apart from all that, he was a great bloke.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
By 'traitor', do you mean to the King?
By traitor I mean simply someone who committed the crime of treason, although in Cromwell's case it was in quite magnificent fashion.

(Original post by The Dictator)
A religious fundamentalist? I suppose, but he did permit freedom of religion (unless you were Catholic of course, but to be fair, the host of Catholic kings we've had brought it upon themselves).
Well, lovely. To be fair, he did bring the Jews back to England. Partially for economic reasons, and partially because he thought that to convert them to Christianity would fulfil some sort of prophesy on the way to the second coming.

Religious toleration (which he wasn't really much good at) is one thing, being a fundamentalist and governing from that stance is quite a different complaint.

He did butcher thousands. In that, he was no different from any other general asserting his control over a territory full of warlords and rebels. If it wasn't for him, the UK as we know it wouldn't exist. You should be thanking him right now.
The UK as we know it wouldn't exist? I suppose there'd maybe be a few more Irish people, but I struggle to see how the state would be much changed.

He was noted even at the time as being a particularly bloody type when it came to war. His record in Ireland should make even his most ardent supporter blush.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
Isn't he the poster boy for being worse than the people you overthrow?
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Cool guy, too bad about the religious dogma.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by The Dictator)
You aren't a republican then.
That's some flawed logic right there. In any case whilst I think republicanism is important and in some cases necessary that doesn't necessarily mean that I support it by any means necessary- I'll save that for the commies!
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by L i b)
By traitor I mean simply someone who committed the crime of treason, although in Cromwell's case it was in quite magnificent fashion.
Treason is one of those Orwellian concepts. Stalinist Russia had its own version.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Treason is one of those Orwellian concepts. Stalinist Russia had its own version.
Yes, Stalinist Russia and virtually every other sovereign state in modern history.

You might as well describe piped water as Stalinist.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by L i b)
Yes, Stalinist Russia and virtually every other sovereign state in modern history.

You might as well describe piped water as Stalinist.
Well then any enlightened rational progressive country shouldn't convict people of committing treason. Just because Cromwell committed treason doesn't inn itself mean he was bad. If you live in the "free world" it shouldn't be possible to commit treason.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Well then any enlightened rational progressive country shouldn't convict people of committing treason. Just because Cromwell committed treason doesn't inn itself mean he was bad. If you live in the "free world" it shouldn't be possible to commit treason.
Why? Do you think levying armed war against the state should be legal? Do you think that a citizen who receives the protection of the state should be able to give actual support to the state's enemies in war? Or to support an invasion?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by L i b)
Why? Do you think levying armed war against the state should be legal? Do you think that a citizen who receives the protection of the state should be able to give actual support to the state's enemies in war? Or to support an invasion?
You mean like Charles I did when he secretly intrigued for Scotland to invade England?

Anyway, the whole concept of 'the State' is way different now to the way it was then. To Charles, the State was Him and Nobody Else had a say. That was Ye Olde methode of the Divigne Righte of Ye Kings, which He much supporteth. :yep:
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You mean like Charles I did when he secretly intrigued for Scotland to invade England?
Er, Charles I was the monarch of Great Britain. The forces of the King could not viably fight the forces of the King: he commanded both.

If he wanted to bring in troops from another realm, that's really his business. It was no more an invasion that the British monarch stationing British troops in India was an affront to the Emperor of India. They're the same person.

Anyway, the whole concept of 'the State' is way different now to the way it was then. To Charles, the State was Him and Nobody Else had a say. That was Ye Olde methode of the Divigne Righte of Ye Kings, which He much supporteth. :yep:
The king was governed by laws, but its executive authority was - and remains - vested in the Sovereign. Parliament can make laws and must be approached to provide supply.

Let's not forget the Civil War was not brought about by parliament. Parliament had voted by a solid majority to engage in negotiations with the King about ending the political impasse.

Then, two days later, Thomas Pryde and his forces either arrested or barred any parliamentarians who did not agree with Cromwell. It was only a rump parliament that sat. That was a coup.
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

Do you give blood?

Yes (69)
7.94%
I used to but I don't now (24)
2.76%
No, but I want to start (321)
36.94%
No, I am unable to (221)
25.43%
No, I chose not to (234)
26.93%

Watched Threads

View All