WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become King?

[Derek Pullem]

Then why on earth did you start on about Ireland's neutrality in ww2? What was that if it wasn't political and abusive?

It is in no way comparable to Cromwell's near genocide of the Irish people. Our people were nearly wiped out. Your's were not, so stop pulling the poor Goliath act.

It's historical.

Accusing me of

You don't even see Ireland as a real f**king country, do you?

is political as it is unsubstantiated.

As others have noted I was not comparing the two directly. I was making the point that mores and laws change over time.

No quarter to the inhabitants of a beseiged town was not uncommon in the seventeenth century. It was a principle in their version of the laws of war that the inhabitants in a city that did not surrender were considered combatants and were offered no protection. A contemporary example to Cromwell was Tilly at the siege of Magdeburg when 25,00 died out of a population of 30,000

Yes Cromwell added ethnic cleansing and selling into slavery on top of massacres.

If you had spoken about ethnic cleansing in Europe at that time no one would have understood you.

Selling Christians into slavery (and I agree there was no practical difference between slavery, transportation and indentured servants for the Irish) was against the laws at the time and is clearly a crime for which Cromwell was guilty. However much of Europe still practiced the institution of serfdom and at the time it would not have seemed as heinous a crime as we see it today.

 

[Strawberry]

The sum result of Cromwell's ethnic cleansing, and mass killing and mass oppression for generations after was terrible.

And let me get this straight - in a history forum, in a thread about Oliver fucking Cromwell, I'm not allowed to put this point of view?

Are you a Holocaust denier?

 

[Saphroneth]

The sum result of Cromwell's ethnic cleansing, and mass killing and mass oppression for generations after was terrible.

And let me get this straight - in a history forum, in a thread about Oliver fucking Cromwell, I'm not allowed to put this point of view?

Are you a Holocaust denier?

You're allowed to put the point of view that it was terrible. You're not allowed to jump from there to accusing someone of Holocaust denial because they point out that, while terrible, it happened in other places around the same time. (Or try to shut down a discussion because the person it's talking about was horrible - Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan were some of the nastiest bastards in history in terms of what they did, and they're among the most common AH topics. The reason I include Napoleon on the list, BTW, is because of his actions in his Egyptian campaign and because of Haiti.)
This was the period of the Wars of Religion we're talking about - in fact, the Three Kingdoms War is considered one of the nastiest OF the wars of religion, and religious pogroms were the order of the day.

 

[Morty Vicar]

If I'm not allowed to get upset about events of a few centuries ago, maybe this shouldn't be a thread about Hitler in a history forum.

I don't understand this point, this isn't a thread about Hitler, but there are plenty of those here. I can understand people being upset, particularly as the Holocaust is just a few generations ago, but we can't just say 'no more Hitler threads because he killed people'. 99.9% of the historical figures discussed here killed people directly or indirectly.

Oliver Cromwell was a genocidal bastard, and I don't care what the rest of you think of him. He should rot in hell.

I don't believe in hell, personally, but ok. This thread isn't about hero-worshipping Cromwell, as much as anything it's about what a nasty character he was. And you're free to say so, of course. But let's say you wrote a thread about James Connolly, and I came storming in calling him a murderous bastard or something. What are you going to do, say 'my bad, I'll delete the thread! Sorry!'.. ?

 

[Saphroneth]

If you had spoken about ethnic cleansing in Europe at that time no one would have understood you.

Selling Christians into slavery (and I agree there was no practical difference between slavery, transportation and indentured servants for the Irish) was against the laws at the time and is clearly a crime for which Cromwell was guilty.

Heck, Julius Caesar's entire early career consisted of a genocidal campaign against the whole of Gaul. This does not in any way disqualify him as a person to talk about in AH terms, or even admire - because he was, indeed, merciful for the time. He chopped off the right hands of the inhabitants of an entire town, and that was merciful.

 

[Rinasoir]

Honestly I figure that while Cromwell personally would have been against the idea of becoming King if the scenario the OP has given us happened it would probably help solidify the Cromwell family as a series Dynasty in Britain as allegiance from one Monarch to another is different to switching from one man to another, at least at the time anyway.

As for forming the UK early, honestly I don't see why he wouldn't. Now that is not to say that would be a good idea at the time, I honestly don't know enough about Scottish history at the time to be able to say if such a move would be positively or negatively received. But if there is one thing that Cromwell was during the early years of his reign it was pragmatic.

 

[Strawberry]

I think however much cant is spoken in his name, Oliver Cromwell is the Irish version of Adolf Hitler, and he will be as eternally despised in my country as Hitler will be in Israel.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think however much cant is spoken in his name, Oliver Cromwell is the Irish version of Adolf Hitler, and he will be as eternally despised in my country as Hitler will be in Israel.

Okay, you don't like him. We get it.
But does that mean the question can't be asked? (For that matter, does it mean that his actions were SO bad as to invalidate him as a potential "king"? I mean, this was the same time period that the Inquisition was hunting down Jews for the auto-da-fe, and they had all-up Papal support for that. As for the opinion of the people of England at the time, they'd view it - sadly - as "what the papists deserved". So I think that his actions in Ireland would not affect his chances as a king, at least not appreciably.)

Heck. Give me an example of "cant spoken in his name" in this thread.

 

[Thoresby]

Oliver Cromwell sold Irish people en masse into slavery, committed massacres, ethnic cleansing, and presided over mass torture and execution.

Oliver Crowell committed a near genocide in Ireland. If he'd had more up to date weapons, I wouldn't be alive.

That bastard is to the Irish what Adolf Hitler is to the Jews. So don't nitpick or preach to me about Cromwell.

I think however much cant is spoken in his name, Oliver Cromwell is the Irish version of Adolf Hitler, and he will be as eternally despised in my country as Hitler will be in Israel.

I would seriously suggest two things; number one maybe read some history books about the period, it's not the OP but suffice to say most modern treatments of the period recognise that for political reasons in the aftermath of the Cromwellian period Cromwell was blamed for a lot of things that happened during the War he wasn't really responsible for as a convenient scapegoat. That incidentally says something about his popularity in that while there were enough defenders of the Parliamentary cause in the Civil War that the topic had to be avoided there were almost not defenders for the Protectorate so that it and all it's works and members could be and were condemned.
It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the deaths in Ireland in the War of the Three Kingdoms occurred before Cromwell reached Ireland and that he arrived in the 8th year of a spectacularly bloody Civil War that had already seen a laundry list of atrocities committed by both sides.

Number Two is learn about Godwin's Law, especially as you are new on this board. There are a lot of discussions that involve ethnic or religious conflict and massacres from Caesar's conquest of Gaul to the Iraq War but unless there are gas chambers and a systematic attempt at extermination we try to avoid making Nazi comparisons, it saves a lot of arguments and prevents threads getting derailed.
Drogheda is comparable to Srebrenica, not Auschwitz.

 

[Strawberry]

Horribly enough, your distinction between the irish and the human race, would actually silence any attempt to state the the obvious equivalence between Oliver Cromwell and Adolf Hitler.

Let me guess - "as long as the Papists deserved it" - that is a justification for Cromwell's actions in Ireland. Is it?

 

[Saphroneth]

It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the deaths in Ireland in the War of the Three Kingdoms occurred before he reached Ireland and that he arrived in the 8th year of a spectacularly bloody Civil War that had already seen a laundry list of atrocities committed by both sides.

That's what I wasn't remembering! I think Eric Flint discussed this in one of the 1632 books.
Hold on:

Aha. 1633.

It seems that (admittedly, this is according to the book):

1) Drogheda involved the massacre of the garrison, not the inhabitants.
2) Cromwell was considered a merciful soldier by the standards of the day.
3) The garrison of Drogheda were, mostly, not actually Irish, but English catholic settlers who'd been dispossessing Irish by grabbing land.
4) The Irishmen in Drogheda lived in a ghetto, which was not touched.

 

[Saphroneth]

Let me guess - "as long as the Papists deserved it" - that is a justification for Cromwell's actions in Ireland. Is it?

...oh, F*CK OFF. We've tried to explain this several times now, and you're not listening.

BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TIME, "the Papists deserved it" would be considered a justification. Much like "They were Black" was a justification for slavery in the 1700s.
WE DON'T THINK THAT.

And you're now accusing people of dehumanization. Give an example of where Irish are referred to by a poster in this thread as being distinct from humans.

 

[Thoresby]

BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TIME, "the Papists deserved it" would be considered a justification. Much like "They were Black" was a justification for slavery in the 1700s.
WE DON'T THINK THAT.

But the thing is "the Papists deserved it" wasn't even used as an excuse. All the excuse anyone needed was "such severity was designed to discourage others from making opposition". We're talking about a 17th century Civil War, horrible massacres aren't unusual. Look at the Bolton Massacre.

 

[Strawberry]

Oliver Cromwell was an absolute disgusting bastard.

And no I don't care if the "Papists" deserved it. Nor do I care if I get shouted at in capital letters. Oliver Cromwell was still a disgusting bastard.


He was like Adolf Hitler, but his victims were Irish Catholics rather than European Jews.

 

[GrinningSatyr]

98% sure that Strawberry is either at the point of not listening regardless of what arguments or explanations are set forth, or is a very skilled troll. It's really frustrating that such an interesting conversation is derailed over whether or not forum members are properly horrified that Cromwell did nasty things to the Irish.

Cromwell did a lot of terrible things, but what I've drawn from the thread is that a)it wouldn't have changed much had Cromwell *become* king, and b)it wouldn't have impeded *becoming* king, as (weirdly) the English nobility and people in power who decided if Cromwell became King didn't much care that the Irish were getting slaughtered.


To ultimately get back on track what sort of effects this might have, do you think that whoever crowns cromwell will gain power over time in the UK, much as the Pope crowned the Holy Roman Emperor? As in, the person/group who does the crowning (Bishop of the Anglican Church? Parliament?) is the one to provide legitimacy for royal institutions?

 

[Strawberry]

98% sure that Strawberry is either at the point of not listening regardless of what arguments or explanations are set forth, or is a very skilled troll.

This is very fucking frustrating. How would you think someone was trolling if they said Hitler was evil?

Oliver Cromwell was the equivalent of Hitler to my people. Try and see our perspective, for crying out loud.

 

[Saphroneth]

But the thing is "the Papists deserved it" wasn't even used as an excuse. All the excuse anyone needed was "such severity was designed to discourage others from making opposition". We're talking about a 17th century Civil War, horrible massacres aren't unusual. Look at the Bolton Massacre.

Very true. As, for that matter, the scorching of all those towns in Iroquois land by Washington's generals a century later.

 

[Saphroneth]

Oliver Cromwell was an absolute disgusting bastard.

And no I don't care if the "Papists" deserved it. Nor do I care if I get shouted at in capital letters. Oliver Cromwell was still a disgusting bastard.


He was like Adolf Hitler, but his victims were Irish Catholics rather than European Jews.

Okay, you know what?
Please rephrase my argument in your own words. It doesn't have to be detailed.

 

[Saphroneth]

This is very fucking frustrating. How would you think someone was trolling if they said Hitler was evil?

Oliver Cromwell was the equivalent of Hitler to my people. Try and see our perspective, for crying out loud.

Okay.
By that metric, Hitler was technically in charge when those a few rungs down pursued a hardline and extremely bloody policy against guerilla warfare (which is the phase where most of the dying actually took place). Correct, but not what first springs to mind when "Hitler" is mentioned.

 

[Rinasoir]

This is very fucking frustrating. How would you think someone was trolling if they said Hitler was evil?

Oliver Cromwell was the equivalent of Hitler to my people. Try and see our perspective, for crying out loud.

Dia duit, Cromwell might be your Hitler but he sure as fuck ain't mine.

Nasty piece of work by modern standards? Sure. Attributed to have caused a lot of horrid things? Sure. Hitler? No way in hell.

There is no one Irish Hitler, only thing close to that was the B*****ds who were responsible for the famine AKA absentee landlords as they willfully committed an act of attempted genocide. Cromwell (if popular history is correct and I am inclined to believe it is over-estimating a bit) was bad, but those people were worse.

Now please could you drop the topic over Cromwell v Us and let this thread try and answer the OP question?