Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
* Lobbying to allow Jews back into England (officially, there probably were unofficial Jewish residents already).
* Pushing for religious toleration.
* A big expansion in primary education, which was later reversed under Charles II.
* The development of science by the Invisible College around Samuel Hartlib, later to become the Royal Society.
* Fighting the Dutch and Spanish.
Also:
* Hitler fixed the roads
* Communist Russia got the first Satellite into space
"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.[11] The Parliamentarians also transported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.[2]"
We don't go but, "oh Hitler painted pictures too".
Edit: Swap "painted pictures" for "built roads", or "helped progress rocket technology", my point is unchanged and in fact strengthened.
* The third was something that happened in Cromwell's reign, but there's no evidence he contributed positively or negatively, and the fact that the monarchy followed up by supporting it and actually chartering the royal society seems to indicate that it had little connection to what the actual regime in power was.
* Primary education good, sure.
* So I was not familiar with the anglo-dutch war so I read the wikipedia article. This appears to be a trade dispute because the English wanted to look the dutch out of shipping to England that was escalated to war by the English after the Dutch refused their ultimatum? This is being offered as a "good" act?
So overall, I don't think funding primary education is an achievement that even begins to counterbalance his actions, sorry.
Besides, to go back to the example of Hitler (and no, this is not Godwin's law, Hitler is the most appropriate comparison to Cromwell in Irish history), Hitler was _great_ for technology. The germans started modern rocketry which led to our modern satelite communications, the allies invented computing, both sides made big leaps in industrial production.
I don't think anyone sensible thinks the above should be considered in a judgement on Hitler's actions. Neither do I think education/scientific funding should excuse Cromwell's.
About his patronage for science: he was more interested in training up preachers, but he wouldn't have seen these as opposed. He planned to set up colleges in the North; Hartlib (key figure in the Invisible College) was on the committee for Durham. These plans were ended by the Restoration.
You're very casual about primary education! It wasn't seen as an obviously good thing at the time - which is why it was reversed. Even in the 19th century, many people still argued that you shouldn't over-educate the working masses. Early literacy may have been a crucial step towards the take-off into economic growth.
There's a lot of people making the comparison with Hitler. I suggest that even the harshest interpretation of the Irish campaign does not bear comparison with the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. English colonization predates Cromwell by at least a century. Ethnic cleansing was planned and carried out in several areas of Ireland. This is, obviously, very bad indeed! But it is not the same as Zyklon gas. The plan had also been laid down before Cromwell became Protector. When he intervened personally, it was usually to urge mercy for specific individuals. This is not the same as "no Hitler, no Holocaust".
Lastly, you're assuming that I only wanted to mention "good stuff". I just wanted a slightly broader and calmer debate. I don't know the historical effects of defeating Spain or Holland.
In comparison, Hitler in Poland is 16%. [1]
Another factor that makes it an appropriate comparison: Like Hitler dispossessed Poles to give their land to Germans, Cromwell dispossessed Irish Catholics to give their land to English and Scottish Protestants.
[1]: Materski, Wojciech; Szarota, Tomasz (2009). "Przedmowa" [Preface]. Polska 1939–1945. Straty Osobowe i Ofiary Represji pod Dwiema Okupacjami [Human Losses and Victims of Repressions under Two Occupations] (in Polish). Warsaw: IPN. ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6. Archived from the original on 23 March 2012. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
Percentages are important, but Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. Absolute numbers matter too.
I looked more into the history. (Your cite doesn't give 600,000 for the figure killed by Cromwell, but for the whole civil war. In fact, the author ends "One wonders how many of the c. 600,000 victims died during Cromwell's campaign." The cite there is to Michael St John Parker, which I can't find.) I'm still hunting for reliable estimates of the population decline. Houston and Houston "Population history" isn't available online. The writers in Ohlmeyer (cited below) don't seem to put up a headline figure. William Petty's estimates aren't modern enough to be useful, although Petty was a serious writer. Note two points. First, population decline isn't the same as causing deaths, especially in a young population. Iraq after 1990 saw "missing population" of up to a million due to sanctions, but this is probably not because a million people were directly killed. You also have to account for declining birth rates and emigration. For instance, marriages fell sharply at the start of the civil war period. Other deaths were due to famine and starvation. Again, these are appalling, buut they are not the same as murder in death camps.
More importantly, these are figures for the entire 1641-1661 conflict. But Cromwell was only there relatively briefly. He didn't start the conflict, nor finish it. He became a shorthand for the whole English policy of the period. That is not necessarily fair to him.
None of this makes Cromwell innocent. (Still less does it make the English leadership as a whole innocent.) But the Hitler comparison are still overblown:
* Cromwell took part in a brutal colonial civil war, which devastated the Irish economy and led to famine and disease. He was responsible for massacres at Wexford and Drogheda.
* Hitler committed deliberate, systematic genocide against at least two ethnic groups, setting up scientific-industrial systems of mass murder which killed millions.
These are not the same.
Things I read while learning more about this:
https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/195/1/55/1523...
Rai, M., 1993. Columbus in Ireland. Race & Class, 34(4), pp.25-34.
Ohlmeyer, J.H. ed., 2002. Ireland from independence to occupation, 1641-1660. Cambridge University Press.
Update. The most serious, detailed estimates I could find are:
Lenihan, P., 1997. War and population, 1649–52. Irish Economic and Social History, 24(1), pp.1-21, available at
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1292941669/fulltextPDF/A...
These give an estimate of population decline of 15-20%, mostly due to famine and plague (which the war was instrumental in spreading).
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2018092...
Those who want to learn more about Cromwell's "push for religious toleration" might want to start by picking up God's Executioner by Micheal O Siochru. I won't spoil it. ahem
> Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent
> [Cromwellian conquest Irish casualties] Unknown; 15,000–20,000 battlefield casualties, over 200,000–600,000 civilian casualties (from war-related violence, famine or disease)[1] ~50,000 deported as indentured labourers[2][3]
> Wexford was the scene of another infamous atrocity: the Sack of Wexford, when Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while negotiations for its surrender were ongoing, and sacked it, killing about 2,000 soldiers and 1,500 townspeople and burning much of the town
Cromwell was, at the low end, signficantly worse than the Spanish Inquisition at an absolute level, and given the relative populations of Ireland and Spain in those days, looks even worse in a proportional level.
And don't forget, this is comparing 5 years of cromwell to 300 of the inquisition.
ISTR that the percentage who died in prison awaiting trial was was rather higher, no?
Another point is that GP's claim "it was Cromwell or the inquisition" is a bit overblown. It was Cromwell or a relatively High Church monarchy, and a lot of taxation without representation. I don't think there's a credible argument that Charles I would have reintroduced Catholicism, still less the Inquisition.
1: Mícheál Ó Siochrú/RTÉ ONE, Cromwell in Ireland Part 2. Broadcast 16 September 2008.
2: O'Callaghan, Sean (2000). To Hell or Barbados. Brandon. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-86322-272-6.
3: Higman, B. W. (1997). Knight, Franklin W. (ed.). General History of the Caribbean: The slave societies of the Caribbean. 3 (illustrated ed.). UNESCO. pp. 107, 108]. ISBN 978-0-333-65605-1.
The 15-80% figure sources are:
15–25% Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, p112
50%: The History and Social Influence of the Potato, Redcliffe N. Salaman, Edited by JG Hawkes, 9780521316231, Cambridge University Press How many died during Cromwell’s campaign?
83%: The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland by John Patrick Prendergast
I would suspect perhaps that the 83% figure is probably going so far as to blame Cromwell for The Great Famine of 1845, and definitely his "to hell or to Connacht" campaign of dispossessing native Irish landowners was a contributing factor in the economic structure that led to it, but I think 200 years apart is enough to not directly attribute that as "deaths to Cromwell's invasion".
(And the choice of comparison here is not carelessly chosen: like the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan for idolatry by the Taliban, Cromwell presided over the destruction of numerous medieval monuments/artwork for the same reason.)
It's important not to confuse Cromwell with "the Puritans" in general, still less some of the extremists in the army. He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.
It's clear that it was different, not that it was wider. Cromwell was generally interested in toleration of various 'non-conformist' groups, but mostly Calvinist ones (presumably these were the ones he counted as "God's children"; 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away since there weren't any significant number of Muslims in Britain at the time). Even Quakers didn't end up particularly well-protected by the Protectorate. (James II, Charles I's younger son, did much more for the Quakers.)
The toleration of Jews was plausibly driven in part by Puritan millennarist beliefs about the role of the Jews in the end-times, but there was a more general trend towards more positive views of Jews throughout the 17th and into the 18th-centuries which doesn't seem specific to Cromwell or the Puritans.
> He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.
He ended up with far more power (both direct and indirect) than the kings preceding or following him.
hm think again, the English people traded, travelled and warred across the known World. The ideas and social constructs of far-away others would certainly be a topic amongst the educated. A public position of tolerance may have been something substantial. Next, weigh that against a forceful, vocal and unapologetic Christian branch that stood for conversion of un-saved souls through the bounty of our Lord JC amen. So, no, not so easy to throw out IHMO.
But the context here was Cromwell talking about (hypothetically) preferring to allow 'Mahometanism' to be practised in England, not just as an idea or social construct of far-away others.
Since there wasn't any great likelihood that any legal or social changes were going to actually cause 'Mahometanism' to suddenly flourish in England, it is indeed a pretty easy throw-away remark.
Er, no, rather the opposite.
> Fighting the Dutch
I don't see why this is in the positive column; English political dysfunctionality was so bad that thirty years after Cromwell's death, the English establishment invited the Dutch to invade, welcomed them, and had them fight the Irish (again). William of Orange is still celebrated by anti-Catholic groups.
Of course the great irony is that he then arbitrarily dismissed Parliament himself (though the record doesn't suggest this was his actual goal) and was so unpopular in power that the restoration of the previous king's son to the throne on his death was inevitable. He certainly wasn't the poster boy for the development of British democracy, but he influenced its development massively - positively and negatively.
There is a decent chance that Parliament would have overthrown and executed Charles I without his military skill or enthusiasm for regicide (just like similar massacres in Ireland would likely have taken place without his -disputed- involvement and apologia) as he wasn't even a significant figure at the beginning of the conflict, but those whose name and public statements becomes most known always get the credit and the blame.
Sources: The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.
He wasn't widely popular outside the parliamentarians, who were the ones in power. The "godly", who made up the majority of the Roundheads were reviled by a substantial portion of the British. Cromwell held the Commonwealth together, that's for sure, but the cohesion amongst the Roundheads dried up once he died.
Source: The English and their History by Robert Tombs
It is true that regicide was not Parliament's original intent and was not pursued until after the Second Civil War. But Cromwell was prominent in making it happen when it did.
It's been over a decade since I studied Cromwell so you'll forgive me for not listing every source I read on the subject, but suffice to say it's more than one podcast :)
Thanks!
If that were true he would have done the same thing in England.
I've seen other people argue this, but that statement is mostly the result of a single (self-proclaimed) amateur historian named Tom Reilly.
What he is saying is that it was the norm at the time to behead surrendered troops and put their heads on pikes around the area.
There's one real problem, though. That wasn't the norm at the time. It's never been the standard practice in siege warfare, especially in an attempted conquest, because it is stupid to do and discourages surrender later.
In fact, in other instances Cromwell himself accepted surrenders. So it wasn't standard at all.
In the end, though, whether or not Cromwell personally massacred thousands of civilians, he set up a government in Ireland and empowered the people that ended up causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Ó Siochrú, M., 2007. Atrocity, codes of conduct and the Irish in the British Civil wars 1641–1653. Past and Present, 195(1), pp.55-86.
Relevant quote: "This savage action [Drogheda] shocked opinion in Ireland and abroad, but by a strict interpretation of the rules of war Cromwell acted entirely within his rights. The commander of Drogheda, Sir Arthur Aston, refused a summons to surrender, thereby forfeiting his life and that of the garrison in the event of a successful assault."
Later he describes Cromwell as moderating his tactics in response to "facts on the ground": exchanging prisoners, and accepting the surrender of Clonmel. After Cromwell left Ireland, the war became bloodier.
Note that Ó Siochrú does not in general spare the English. He describes the "savage practices of England and Scotland" affecting Ireland in the 1640s, and gives examples of Irish prisoners of war being killed (in England), and of this being protested against by contemporary Royalists.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons
Churchill was first - another figure who splits opinion depending on where you ask.
Either way, its always better not to demonise those you argue against, whatever you feel about who they are championing.
Turning the opposition into "monsters" is what led to the pogroms and massacres these histories are full of.
It was a TV competition the first round of which was a survey of 30,000 people. The voters who got him on the list and to 10th place probably aren't that many people to call “monsters”. (You were probably referring to all Britons other than the 9 ahead of him, but that’s simply the wrong set.)
"Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and the repercussions of his actions led to the european union and european peace eventually. And the 20th century was such a violent time, standards were different, they had two huge global wars. You had Stalin, Mao, countless african warlords, people were used to cruel dictatorships"
There are already people today who look at Hitler as a hero. We don't look kindly on these people.
Much of the goodwill towards Napoleon’s memory is from the nastier factors of the French psyche.
Until something like that happens again, we will probably always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman.
Also there’s the problem that Hitler didn’t revitalise the economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn’t even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk. Germany’s economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of the 30s looted by Stalin.
I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying.
The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a country that exists today (not people, everyone alive then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting responsibility to make things right today.
Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no connection to the present is pointless, except when using it as an example.
In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.
Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife.
You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you.
> In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality.
Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans).
> It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.
Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself.
History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.
The Roman Senate absolutely did. Caesar was to be put on trial for the atrocities he perpetrated, which is why he decided to seize power in the first place.
His critics like Cato weren’t abolitionists, if it was to him, the plebeians might have been slaves too (exaggeration).
Of course all the religious banners and labels always have been an excuse for power and money grabs.
Cromwell has a place in history right next to people like pol pot, Himmler and other such figures.
Stopped reading at this point. If the author doesn’t understand that the Cromwell legacy is already tarnished due to war crimes I doubt there’s going to be much reason to continue.
> James Joyce wrote in Ulysses, 1922, “What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text God is love pasted round the mouth of his cannon?”
> Winston Churchill’s view in The History of the English Speaking Peoples: The Age of Revolution, 1957, is perhaps less artful, but succinct: “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…. Upon all of us there still lies ‘the curse of Cromwell.’ ”
Quotes propagated from https://simanaitissays.com/2018/11/28/oliver-cromwell-purita...
James Joyce commentary: 1922 Winston Churchill commentary: 1957
300 years is a lot of hindsight.
You have to remenber that things we take as granted nowdays, may have been divisive at the time.
Cromwell gets defenders for opposing them, despite committing many of the same bad things, and in the case of Ireland, even harsher actions with longer term consequences.
Complaints about the british monarchy don't excuse Cromwell his actions.
But it does mean reacting to this article purely for its ambivalence about Cromwell's actions is probably the least curious thing you can do.
The best case might be the slave trade. But this was at its height under the Hanoverians, by which time the Commons was already the effective supreme power. I suppose you could say that the slave trade started earlier, and that this starting event caused the later expansion. Maybe, but that's a claim about the causal chain that needs arguing for.