WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become King?

[Thoresby]

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.

I'm leaning more towards moderately skilled troll, he's not subtle enough to qualify as very skilled.

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?

As to the long term effects of a Cromwellian monarchy he had emasculated Parliament and seemed to be basing his legitimacy on God's Will as demonstrated by his victory in the Civil War. Of course the popularity of his regime and the depth of popular legitimacy can be seen in how fast it collapsed after his death. Now I think a Monarchy with it's emphasis on Crown rather than the person under it would be more durable than the very personal institution of Lord Protector. But I still don't think it would be very durable. The Cromwellian regime was irredeemably tainted with high taxes, war, a more dictatorial attitude to Parliament than anyone since Henry VIII and religious extremism. That's why no defended the regime or Cromwell for centuries after it fell until Radical historians of the 20th century.

 

[Strawberry]

Oliver Cromwell would die a slow and ignominious death, regardless of whether he was King or Lord Something or Other, or Whatever.

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard.

 

[Hotpoint]

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.

Oliver Cromwell would die a slow and ignominious death, regardless of whether he was King or Lord Something or Other, or Whatever.

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard.

I really suggest you read Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy by Tom Reilly.

Cromwell was nowhere near as bad as is made out and his reputation is largely the victim of a propaganda campaign which followed the Restoration of the Monarchy.

 

[Saphroneth]

Oliver Cromwell would die a slow and ignominious death, regardless of whether he was King or Lord Something or Other, or Whatever.

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard.

Yes. Everyone dies.


Oliver Cromwell's decline and death were actually quite rapid, though, by the standards of not actually dying in an accident/battle at the time.

 

[Thoresby]

Oliver Cromwell would die a slow and ignominious death, regardless of whether he was King or Lord Something or Other, or Whatever.

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard.

Lets take it as read that your opinion of Cromwell was 100% correct and that he really was Hitler's previous incarnation. Why does that mean he would die and slow and ignominious death? In OTL he suffered a bout of malarial fever leading to a kidney complaint and a relatively quick death. Presumably as it was the 17th century it wasn't painless but unlike Charles II or a number of contemporaries his death was regarded as relatively quick and easy.

Now being crowned King would cause butterflies that could lead to a more painful death but I can't see any certainty or causation there.

And as for his legacy as I said up the thread Timur, William the Conqueror and Qin Shi Huang all showed that being a spectacularly brutal Warlord is no obstacle to leaving a long line of successors to take your place. The difference was that unlike them Cromwell's regime was unstable and fell apart almost instantly.

 

[Strawberry]

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?

Oh lovely. A castle catholic. I'm afraid no system of oppression can stand up in the face of collusion.

 

[Thoresby]

Oh lovely. A castle catholic. I'm afraid no system of oppression can stand up in the face of collusion.

Could you pleas stop insulting people. Having a different opinion about who was the worst person in Irish history is not a reason to launch ad hominem attacks.

 

[dropbearabroad]

First, the aside. Strawberry, take a deep breath and calm down. You're flying off the handle making bizarre accusations about other posters' opinions when you are misunderstanding their comments. Not a single post here has defended Cromwell's actions so try reading them again with a clear head. For the record, Cromwell's forces probably killed some of my Irish Catholic ancestors too, but you don't speak for me or for the Irish Catholics I know.

Back to the OP. I read a book last year on the restitution of the English monarchy and the political maneuverings behind it. Mainly the book concerned the hunting down of all those deemed to have had a role in Charles I's execution (can't remember the title sorry), but there was a lot of discussion about the apparent political mood of the time. In brief, it sounded like England was utterly sick of Cromwell and heavy-handed Puritan rule. If Cromwell did declare himself King, then I first think he would have had to put down a few revolts and assassination attempts from the staunch Puritans (his main supporters) who were utterly opposed to a return to the monarchy and were ever-watchful for any signs that Cromwell was having such thoughts, and then have to win over the majority of people who did really believe that Charles' son was the rightful king.

Cromwell might have been successful in claiming the crown but I think it more likely that he would be knocked off by one of his former supporters who would have felt that Cromwell was making the ultimate betrayal. I think at best (for Cromwell) he could have held on to the crown through force and terror but when he died Richard (as someone else already suggested) had little desire to be king and one way or another Charles II would have regained the throne.

 

[Rinasoir]

Could you pleas stop insulting people. Having a different opinion about who was the worst person in Irish history is not a reason to launch ad hominem attacks.

Ignore him, personal attacks on other members are a bannable offence, he'll be gone soon enough.

 

[Saphroneth]

First, the aside. Strawberry, take a deep breath and calm down. You're flying off the handle making bizarre accusations about other posters' opinions when you are misunderstanding their comments. Not a single post here has defended Cromwell's actions so try reading them again with a clear head. For the record, Cromwell's forces probably killed some of my Irish Catholic ancestors too, but you don't speak for me or for the Irish Catholics I know.

Back to the OP. I read a book last year on the restitution of the English monarchy and the political maneuverings behind it. Mainly the book concerned the hunting down of all those deemed to have had a role in Charles I's execution (can't remember the title sorry), but there was a lot of discussion about the apparent political mood of the time. In brief, it sounded like England was utterly sick of Cromwell and heavy-handed Puritan rule. If Cromwell did declare himself King, then I first think he would have had to put down a few revolts and assassination attempts from the staunch Puritans (his main supporters) who were utterly opposed to a return to the monarchy and were ever-watchful for any signs that Cromwell was having such thoughts, and then have to win over the majority of people who did really believe that Charles' son was the rightful king.

Cromwell might have been successful in claiming the crown but I think it more likely that he would be knocked off by one of his former supporters who would have felt that Cromwell was making the ultimate betrayal. I think at best (for Cromwell) he could have held on to the crown through force and terror but when he died Richard (as someone else already suggested) had little desire to be king and one way or another Charles II would have regained the throne.

That seems to make sense. I wonder if there'd be butterflies from the American colonists? (Either heading back to support their "new king" or getting more support for trying to build a "perfect land"...)

 

[Rinasoir]

That seems to make sense. I wonder if there'd be butterflies from the American colonists? (Either heading back to support their "new king" or getting more support for trying to build a "perfect land"...)

Hmm, the overseas Puritans coming back instead of staying would be a very interesting butterfly to go with. After all it is not like Puritan settlement in the US was going swimmingly at the time.

 

[sparky42]

Should we rage against the government of Eire for failing to stand up to the Germans during WW2, for banning any Irish volunteer in the fight against Hitler from any state support or jobs for seven years?

I think you missed the last clause of Derek's statement. "The further back you go the worse it gets".
The idea that, in 1940-5, someone would consider joining what eventually became the entire rest of the planet in waging war on Hitler as not only wrong but grounds to ban the person joining from support for seven years... that's kind of startling to me. I didn't know about it. I knew Ireland was neutral (and thought of that as a little surprising but understandable), but I didn't know about the cut-off thing.

For accuracy though it's not germane to the topic. No the Government didn't ban everyone that served in the Allied Forces from jobs after the War. It was those that had joined the Irish military and then deserted to join the British that suffered that punishment. Was that wrong yes, however they legitimately could and should have been tried for desertion during a national emergency when they returned, hell even now when the State came up with a half way house of apologising they went to great pains to point out that they weren't condoning the desertion (and those surviving Defence Forces personnel that didn't desert still hate the idea of the apology with a passion). I think you are talking about less than 10K that fell into that category.

 

[Abhakhazia]

I don't think he would in all honesty. His motivation was his distrust of Royalty, and much of his support came from just that.

While I wouldn't necessarily say he had a distrust for royalty, he certainly didn't have a lot of respect for it. During the opening stages of the first civil war, when most Parliamentarians were preaching the somewhat confusing line of "fight for King and Parliament", Cromwell said that if he "saw the King on the battlefield, he would not hesitate to fire his musket."

So, I agree with the general consensus here, that Cromwell isn't likely to take the Crown. Maybe, if Richard Cromwell was King Richard IV instead of simply Lord Protector, he would get more support, but again, there is no reason to assume Tumble Down Dick wouldn't avoid gaining that title as King Richard. He was no Oliver, that's for sure.

Oliver Cromwell would die a slow and ignominious death, regardless of whether he was King or Lord Something or Other, or Whatever.

Cromwell was a genocidal bastard.

We're tried to have a reasonable discussion about Oliver Cromwell. Just because you view Oliver Cromwell as some genocidal maniac, which he wasn't, doesn't mean you need to spew propaganda about the man all over this thread.

Was Cromwell a brutal general? Yes. Were there civilian deaths in Ireland? Absolutely. Was Cromwell "genocidal" in any sense of the word? Not really. He didn't come to Ireland with the goal of killing every Irish man and woman, no, he came to defeat his enemies, like a general would.

So don't even start this.

 

[Abhakhazia]

Hmm, the overseas Puritans coming back instead of staying would be a very interesting butterfly to go with. After all it is not like Puritan settlement in the US was going swimmingly at the time.

Actually, many Puritans came back during the Protectorate and especially during the Civil War. I think you might see some reverse migration like that to continue under a Cromwell dynasty (again, considering Richard could keep the throne or did not ascend), and more Catholic and Anglo-Catholic migration to the colonies. That would create a massive difference in America, given how throughout much of our history, there was a strong connection to the Puritan values of our ancestors.

 

[Saphroneth]

For accuracy though it's not germane to the topic. No the Government didn't ban everyone that served in the Allied Forces from jobs after the War. It was those that had joined the Irish military and then deserted to join the British that suffered that punishment. Was that wrong yes, however they legitimately could and should have been tried for desertion during a national emergency when they returned, hell even now when the State came up with a half way house of apologising they went to great pains to point out that they weren't condoning the desertion (and those surviving Defence Forces personnel that didn't desert still hate the idea of the apology with a passion). I think you are talking about less than 10K that fell into that category.

Ah, gotcha. Right, that makes much more sense. (I did wonder.)

 

[Strawberry]

Oliver Cromwell was a genocidal maniac. He enslaved people en masse, he massacred people en masse, he committed masss torture, ethnic cleansing on an epic scale.

Oliver Cromwell was Ireland's equivalent to Adolf Hitler. I've no idea why he is still respectable.

 

[Derek Pullem]

For accuracy though it's not germane to the topic. No the Government didn't ban everyone that served in the Allied Forces from jobs after the War. It was those that had joined the Irish military and then deserted to join the British that suffered that punishment. Was that wrong yes, however they legitimately could and should have been tried for desertion during a national emergency when they returned, hell even now when the State came up with a half way house of apologising they went to great pains to point out that they weren't condoning the desertion (and those surviving Defence Forces personnel that didn't desert still hate the idea of the apology with a passion). I think you are talking about less than 10K that fell into that category.

True but when you consider the Irish defence forces numbered only 20,000 in September 1939 and at their peak was only a little more than 100,000 that is a large minority of the army. I think the Irish volunteers in the British army were some 80,000 total.

Interestingly enough volunteers in the American forces were permitted to wear their uniforms in public at the end of the war, the British volunteers were not.

 

[GrinningSatyr]

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.

Look, several times over the thread, people have stated they think Cromwell is evil. Literally no one is debating this point. However, your repeated comparisons to Hitler (which I will discuss in a moment), your repeated refusal to discuss the initial point of the thread ("WI: Oliver Cromwell chose to become king?"), and your insistence on name calling and using profanity toward other members indicate that you have little desire to stop the inflammation of the discussion. If all you're looking to do is incite reaction (which I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume, given the above), that's trolling. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and attempt to explain part of what's so incredibly wrong, from my perspective, about comparing Cromwell to Hitler.

I looked up the population fall for Ireland during the Cromwell era, and the best resource I could come up with was the graph here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_Ireland_since_1600.png which shows that the Irish population fell from ~1.5 million people to ~1 million over the course of a little more than a decade. Losing 33% of your population in a decade is a terrible, horrible thing for a people to have to deal with, regardless of the cause, and dealing with the fact that it came from an ethnoreligious war of oppression makes it even more difficult to swallow.

You choose to compare Cromwell's war of subjugation to Hitlers program of extermination. Hitler's Holocaust, in contrast to Oliver Cromwell's "stop the war and I'll stop killing your families and children and burning your cities to the ground" blackmail-flavor of atrocity, was a program with the only final aim of complete and utter extermination of a people, regardless of any action they might take, less emigration to a less hateful place.

The total number of Jewish people killed numbers roughly 6 million; these people were, in large majority, killed en masse in locations that were built, designed, and constructed for the sole purpose (I'm sorry, sometimes they were labor slave factories as well and produced goods to keep the German war machine running) of killing them. The total pre-Holocaust population of Jewish people in Europe numbered close to 9 million, which means the rate of death was roughly 2/3.

Jewish people who were killed were drawn from across all of Europe (3,931,000 sq miles) as opposed to the Irish, who were almost exclusively from a 32,595 sq mile island. (Source for areas: Google search of "total land area of _______"). To say that there was a bit of extra effort in gathering up all of the Jewish people would not be out of place.

Cromwell committed his atrocities when the Industrial Revolution was but a gleam in a capitalist's eye; Hitler committed his atrocities with the full might of an industrial empire that literally prioritized killing Jewish people higher than anything else, including some fronts of combat.

This is a good way to demonstrate just how dissimilar the two are, and how conflating them lessens the impact each has on successive generations. Hitler killed 2/3 (instead of 1/3) of a larger number of people (9 million Jewish people vs. 1.5 million Irish people at the times of calamity) over a greater area (by close to a factor of one hundred) in ways that were not comparable (Industrialization of slaughter).

Given the, er, right perspective (?), Cromwell's ability to slaughter 1/3 of the Irish without using industrial processes or facilities is its own kind of special horror; to slaughter so many people *BY HAND*, for lack of a better term, gives us a lot of different lessons about human cruelty and capacity for evil than the mechanized, modern slaughters of Hitler, which includes lessons about the banality of evil (bureaucracy), and how entire societies can go mad with hate (mass media and Nazi propaganda).

This doesn't even touch on the horrors visited on the Rroma, sexual and romantic/gender minorities, and people with disabilities, which adds a layer of complexity to Hitler's actions that is not present for Cromwell's. In contrast, Cromwell's actions were part of a long, 400 year narrative of English oppression and occupation of Ireland, which brings a completely different and deeper meaning than is present for many kinds of hatred for Hitler. (who many Jewish people see as the culmination of many centuries of building anti-semitism, but who is not viewed as a long-term "occupier", for example)

Oliver Cromwell was a terrible, terrible person who not only did terrible things, but oversaw and approved of many terrible things. He was, however, not Hitler, and comparing the two accomplishes little other than unnecessary inflammation of passion (THEY'RE AS BAD AS HITLER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law )and the terrible practice (seen above) of comparing genocides and atrocities.

Human suffering and death is evil, but is not something that necessarily needs to be delved into for every discussion. If you'd care to discuss the English atrocities by Cromwell and how they may have been reduced or prevented, that's a great place to badmouth Cromwell for his Irish atrocities.

While I'm not much for policing other people's feelings or thoughts on a particular subject, I am a great proponent for policing how people interact with one another. I am not Irish; I have no Irish family; I cannot understand how deeply you hate Cromwell or how it has impacted your life in a personal way. I can, however, request that you not scream and shout and make nasty posts all over an alternate history forum known for its restraint and decorum because some people don't see eye to eye with you. That's as close to your perspective as I can get without making similar false/nonuseful equivalencies between the Irish genocide and my experiences as oppressed class.




TL; DR: "Atrocities and genocides are bad, but to compare Hitler to a 17th century civil way is, perhaps, not the best way of highlighting the different evils each expresses, and dilutes our understanding of the lessons we can learn about preventing such evils again. Please be more polite in the future."

 

[sparky42]

True but when you consider the Irish defence forces numbered only 20,000 in September 1939 and at their peak was only a little more than 100,000 that is a large minority of the army. I think the Irish volunteers in the British army were some 80,000 total.

Interestingly enough volunteers in the American forces were permitted to wear their uniforms in public at the end of the war, the British volunteers were not.

On further digging UK sources put the number at 5,000 that fall under the category.

Given the views of the day I'm not surprised by them not wearing uniforms, even my family who had members serve in WW1 and respected them, hated the Army for burning Cork in the War.

 

[Strawberry]

TL; DR: "Atrocities and genocides are bad, but to compare Hitler to a 17th century civil way is, perhaps, not the best way of highlighting the different evils each expresses, and dilutes our understanding of the lessons we can learn about preventing such evils again. Please be more polite in the future."

Fine. I agree, even with the long version.

Cromwell, however, is still an evil bastard. And I hate him.