Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[Tetro Kornbluth]

@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'.

But you're an Irish Catholic, you WOULD say that wouldn't you?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

he was also, in my opinion, one of the first modern dictators and tyrants.

The only way in which that's true is the fact that he didn't give himself an aristocratic title.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously that sort of thing comes into play a great deal when Cromwell is discussed (both real links to the period and imagined ones; Isaac Foot's remark (ie; wanting to know which side someone would like to think that their ancestors were on) about Marston Moor rings very true).

[afleitch]

My own dislike of Cromwell isn't really religious. It's nationalistic. He gave scant regard for the constitutional status of Scotland as a free nation, execution or no execution. I don't like centralisers

[DanielX]

Decidedly mixed. He was a tyrant, and was rather oppressive to Catholic subjects. However, he extended religious toleration over many Protestant groups, not to mention Jews, that didn't have it before. Also, after Cromwell's reign there were basically no more dictatorial Kings or Queens; from the time of his death forward Parliament served as a more powerful check on the monarchy - by the 19th century the role of King/Queen had dwindled to its modern, mostly ceremonial position.

[TeePee4Prez]

I have to agree with what afleitch said. While he helped to destroy the theory of devine right in the English monarchy he was also, in my opinion, one of the first modern dictators and tyrants.

Also I must admit that while I'm not religious in any way I do have family to consider. As English Catholics who fought for the Royalists in the Civil War I have a bit of a historical obligation to call him a villain.

We do agree on something.  I never thought of Cromwell destroying the concept of "divine right".  I still have to say he's on the same vein as Hitler despite that.  Being an Irish Catholic (name only, I know) descending mostly from Potato Famine immigrants, which I put most of the blame on Cromwell, I wonder what Ireland have been like if the English never bothered with it.  Would the Catholic Church's sometimes feudal policies be just as bad as the English?  See pre-Revolution France so there is a distinct possibility.   

Another point I should mention is the Quakers did a hell of a lot more to alleviate the Potato Famine than the Vatican did giving only token support.  Ever see an Irish pope?  Nope! (No pun intended)  Sad considering we've suffered the most for a Church that didn't even bother to rally Spain, Portugal, France, Austria,  Italian City States, etc. to Ireland's defense during the mid 1800s.  I still think the above powers combined would have at least make the British leave Ireland.         

I know some hardcore Catholics have and will give me a lot of sh**t for what I just said, but it's something to think about.

Ooohh.. You've really found the untouched minefield there. I'll get back to that in a minute.

@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 think Oliver Cromwell has more of an effect on a particular foreign people than Emperor Augustus so it's like comparing apples and oranges.  I know I found the untouched minefield, as you said, but don't you think the powers listed above could have started an "Armada II" if they really gave a crap about their fellow Catholics?  I know my theory's not entirely without holes, but it surely holds a lot of water. 

[Verily]

Oliver Cromwell was a failed Napoleon: a nationalist leader who cared very little for the republic he espoused. He was an opportunist who sought to further his own power using the veil of democracy, but the implementation of his grandiose visions undermined that veil and eventually revealed his charade to everyone, leading to the downfall of republicanism and the return of the monarchy.

Disapprove.

(Napoleon ultimately failed, too, but in a much more spectacular fashion.)