Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[Јas]

"We have seen the many ties which at one time or another have joined the inhabitants of the Western islands, and even in Ireland itself offered a tolerable way of life to Protestants and Catholics alike. Upon all of these Cromwell's record was a lasting bane. By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds. "Hell or Connaught" were the terms he thrust upon the native inhabitants, and they for their part, across three hundred years, have used as their keenest expression of hatred "The Curse or Cromwell on you." The consequences of Cromwell's rule in Ireland have distressed and at times distracted English politics down even to the present day. To heal them baffled the skill and loyalties of successive generations. They became for a time a potent obstacle to the harmony of the English-speaking people through-out the world. Upon all of us there still lies 'the curse of Cromwell'."
Churchill

Villain is quite the understatement...

[Јas]

Alot of that is a 19th Century nationalist semi-fabricated (only semi-fabricated, mind you) hogwash made up by our great patriots to fit into the "great national struggle of the MONE people (Most Oppresed Nation on Earth) against British Imperialism, blah, blah, blah"..

Yes Cromwall did commit plently of massarces of course, though never on scale of our invented histories. The actual historical states that generally only the garrison were killed in the towns captured - after they surrendered while fighting having turned down an offer to do so at the start of the siege, which were the normal rules of war at the time (not that I justify THAT mind you). The massarce of Drogheda, et al being somewhat of a myth.

I don't think the argument that yes there were 'massacres', but they weren't really all that bad, plays all that well...

I can't think of any people who committed or orchestrated any massacre, whom I would classify as a 'hero'.

Of course there was the radical (well not that radical really; not after the Ulster Plantation) distrubtion of the land towards the Protestant landlords, many of which would keep their estates until the Parnell era and yes they were bad things and evil for the country (I have Michael Davitt in my sig; so that should tell you my opinion on them ffs.) but in reality for the majority of Irish people just replaced one repressor with the other - Cromwell had pretty much destroyed the Norman-Catholic aristocracy which was why he such got bad rep here, but our "more Irish than Irish ourselves" aristocrats were just as good at oppresing Irish people as a matter of fact; and were often diehardly conservative and supported the Medevilist Catholic church - then the enemy of all knowledge and enlightment (sorry Catholics, but it's true) and certainly never have warmed to the whole "parliament" idea.

Again, the he wasn't that bad argument doesn't sell me here either.
The Cromwellian plantation was not a good thing, IMO. Catholic ownership of land here fell around 90%. Significant sections of the population were forced to leave their land to move to the most unproductive lands in the country.

The Act of Settlement also is not something I would want a 'hero' to bring about.
Whereas the Parliament of England, after the expense of much blood and treasure for suppression of the horrid rebellion in Ireland, have by the good hand of God upon their undertakings, brought that affair to such an issue, as that a total reducement and settlement of that nation may, with God's blessing, be speedily effected...

Even if one believes he was only replacing one set of oppressors with another, then the requirements to meet the status of 'hero' have really slipped.

[Јas]

@Jas: Of course there were many negative things about Cromwell's reign, his authoritian puritianism especially towards Catholics, his decision in the end to hand over the commonwealth to his son (though that was soon recinded), the growth of charlatanism thanks to politics towards Witchcraft (Until Hawk brought it up, I forgot that Hopkins was during "the commonwealth".) and of course his Irish policies (Though I've play them into the context of the time - they were then 'played' by what were considered then to be the normal rules of war - thus my point about the Drogheda massacre - not that I justify that in the slightest). My main point was to rebutt the typical nationalist verbatim which follows any discussion about Cromwell's Ireland policies forgetting some of the more positive impact of reign.

Cromwell to me is a figure is too far distant in time to really pass any true moral judgement, he should perhaps be seen somewhat in the same light as say, The Emperor Augustus or even, Elizabeth I, people of dubious morals who in the end led to some positive results (if intentional or not).

I actually don't really contest much of that at all.
But even judging him in the context of this time, I just think he did far more damage than good - hence 'villain' and not 'hero'.