Oliver Cromwell, Saint or Sinner?

Most Britons have a big blind spot regarding Irish history. Even people well informed about British military history struggle to recall any battles in Ireland other than the Boyne,

I've heard a song that will help then learn some of those battles.
 

Dwarf

LE
Interesting, would you place Charles I as worse than his son James? I can't help thinking that while Charles messed things up badly he at least had the excuse that he knew no better. For James II to come along and, having seen what happened to his old man, start messing about with a stubborn parliament and a contumaciously protestant people seems idiotic beyond measure.
I was musing on this during my afternoon hike today and it seems to me that it raises both parrallels and contrasts with OC. Both men had strong religious convictions which were the basis for how they acted, however James was rowing against the tide of a Protestant England whereas OC had the support of many in this aspect.
Both men faced a Parliament that raised opposition to their projects and both tried to work without it. In this OC was successful and indeed James' father had managed without Parliament for long stretches. A big difference was that OC had the support of the Army when push came to shove, James found the opposite was true.
I think James calculated that based on History he could rule with the Army and over-riding Parliament to achieve his aims. Rather than idiotic I think he seriously miscalculated and was naive in thinking he could revive Catholicism, or at least have Catholics in positions of power and command, and that it would be accepted by the people. At the end of the day it was his promotion of Catholics allied to the dismissal of those who protested or did not accept his conditions, and with the birth of a viable heir to prolong this is what cost him the support of people and Army.
OC managed to effectively rule as a de facto king by character and ensuring support by the Army and enough of the people. James managed to alienate these fundamental pillars of support which took talent, but I also think that he thought the attempt to bring the direction of 'the one true religion' back to England worth the attempt.
 
Ireland is far less Catholic than it ever was, but as a liberal democracy and (an apparently) staunch member of the EU, Brexit provides scope for new fields of conflict, as well as an illustration of how Ireland is overlooked in Westminster.
Again, just a thought.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
I was brought up in Skipton, the (Royalist) castle there was under siege during the civil war for three years, my views and knowledge of Cromwell and the parliamentarians are reflective of the town's history - and probably not dissimilar from other Yorkshire strongholds and castle towns.
I've not really studied much history before the Franco-Prussian wars, i'm beginning to think I should - Cromwell sounds interesting and bits of him may well be entombed at Newburgh Priory.

For reasons which elude me, I re-sat my A level history in a completely different period than the 1815-1945 time frame I had (failed) at school.

On the new course we covered both the Thirty Years War in Europe and the English Civil War.

By the time the Hapsburgs, their mercenaries and the Swedish Army had finished with it, Germany was in much the same state as it was in 1945.



The Thirty Years' War was a conflict fought in modern Germany and Central Europe from 1618 to 1648. Estimates of total military and civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation. In some areas of Germany, it has been suggested that up to 60% of the population died
SkippedOnce said:
Except that the RN traces its origin to 1546,
Say what?

I sent out thousands of copies of this working in the Directorate of Naval Recruiting back in the day.

A Short History Of The Royal Navy- Hampshire, A. Cecil


1617580281839.png



I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy claims a heritage at least 600 years prior to 1546.....according to DNR's old reference book , the RN dates back to @alfred_the_great ....whose footsteps I can hear hastening in this direction.
 
Last edited:

Dwarf

LE
I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy claims a heritage at least 600 years prior to 1546.....according to DNR's old reference book , the RN dates back to @alfred_the_great ....whose footsteps I can hear hastening in this didirection
From Alfred's time ships were mainly gathered as and when though monarchs may maintain a certain number of fighting ships they were mainly dual role.

It was Henry VIII who instituted a standing navy, though mainly as a local force with France and Spain in mind.
Charles I began an expansion of the navy now known as royal, and the financing of which was one of the sparks of the Civil War. It was under Charles that the prefix HMS was first used to designate a warship as opposed to civilian ship.
Under the Protectorate the naval expansion was consolidated and put to serious tests. With the need to protect colonies the navy also began to develop the world vision that was a characteristic and which helped lead to Empire.

Most people's vision of OC is a land bound Roundhead on horseback. His part in the naval expansion that led to Britain becoming a world power isn't well known.

Ed. Sausage fingers.
 
From Alfred's time ships were mainly gathered as and when though monarchs may maintain a certain number of fighting ships they were mainly dual role.

It was Henry VIII who instituted a standing navy, though mainly as a local force with France and Spain in mind.
Charles I began an expansion of the navy now known as royal, and the financing of which was one of the sparks of the Civil War. It was under Charles that the prefix HMS was first used to designate a warship as opposed to civilian ship.
Under the Protectorate the naval expansion was consolidated and put to serious tests. With the need to protect colonies the navy also began to develop the world vision that was a characteristic and which helped lead to Empire.

Most people's vision of OC is a land bound Roundhead on horseback. His part in the naval expansion that led to Britain becoming a world power isn't well known.

Ed. Sausage fingers.

Or that James II 'became lord high admiral and did much to maintain the efficiency and improve the organization of the navy. He also showed considerable interest in colonial ventures; it was on his initiativethat New Amsterdam was seized from the Dutch in 1664 and renamed New York in his honour. He commanded the fleet in the opening campaigns of the Second and Third Dutch wars.'

 

Dwarf

LE
Or that James II 'became lord high admiral and did much to maintain the efficiency and improve the organization of the navy. He also showed considerable interest in colonial ventures; it was on his initiativethat New Amsterdam was seized from the Dutch in 1664 and renamed New York in his honour. He commanded the fleet in the opening campaigns of the Second and Third Dutch wars.'

It's like so many historical figures that have bad reputations. John did some good things as well as the bad but was unlucky in war, while Richard was actually a bad king except in warfare.
The Stuarts were not total disasters, they were modernisers in a lot of ways, some unintentional.
The modern two party system in Britain was stimulated by James as disagreeing MPs began to group together.
What got them bad press was their attitudes, much like John, rather than their achievements.
Similarly OC who continued the process of modernisation but his reputation depends on where you are looking from.
 
Wake me up when Ireland manages to something significant like.....


... erm...

Winning the Eurovision song contest??

Enjoy.

 

Pteranadon

LE
Book Reviewer
To the almost complete indifference of everyone.
Really?

I don't think that is a view shared by Ulstermen, given the distinct possibility of demographics re-uniting the 32 counties.

There was also a bit of consternation around what the Irish referred to as The Emergency (1939-1945) when the British discovered they had lost the ports and airfields in the SW corner of Ireland.

I vaguely remember something called the Troubles which seemed to do with unfinished business from 1923.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Really?

I don't think that is a view shared by Ulstermen, given the distinct possibility of demographics re-uniting the 32 counties.

There was also a bit of consternation around what the Irish referred to as The Emergency (1939-1945) when the British discovered they had lost the ports and airfields in the SW corner of Ireland.

I vaguely remember something called the Troubles which seemed to do with unfinished business from 1923.

If the Irish weren't whingeing about Cromwell or potatos they'd be whingeing about something else. Maybe you could protest your extreme significance in order to change the complete indifference to a stiff ignoring, but I very much doubt even that.

Through the medium of interpretative dance maybe?
 

HCL

LE
It's very bizarre that you argue that the Penal Laws didn't exist, they're an indisputable historical fact.

The Plantation of Ulster had happened before long OC rocked up in the South and was a done deed by then. You may think that Ulster was representative of the rest of Ireland.

The Anglo-Irish aristocracy were/are also a very real and separate group, they kept themselves apart from their Irish tenants. It was much the same thing going on in England, Wales and Scotland. The big country houses (Downton Abbey type of thing) operated by the Lord, the land owner, renting land to tenant farmers via his land agent; he could minimize his mingling with the lower orders. The same in Ireland. Gentlemen did not work, it would brutalize them. They purchased commissions in the army (until 1870s) for their younger sons.

The reason Lady Chatterley's Lover was scandalous (this is in an English context, remember) was that the gentry did not mingle or marry with the working classes, they were beneath them.

The Anglo-Irish estates with the 'big house' were also a reality in the South of Ireland. Both of my Grandfathers, at opposite ends of the country (the later RoI) bought their farms before WW1 as some of the big estates were sold off through the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board. It's pointless to argue the Anglo-Irish landlords were some made up yarn, that all happened. Their ancestors had mostly obtained their lands by confiscation at the time of Cromwell.

PS The 'big house' near the northern Grandfather's farm was a Georgian mansion, a ruin when I knew it. The estate had been acquired in Cromwell's time. I looked it up to see why it hadn't been burned. The IRA hadn't burned the house because it had been bought around 1905/10 by a local who'd made his fortune in Argentina.

The local 'big house' in Connaught (South West) was much smaller, more like a big UK farm house. I'd guess the return from the rents was less, the land was poorer. The IRA hadn't burned it because the house had been bought by my Grandfather.

Wikipedia;

"The Commissioners (Royal Commission 1845, pre-famine) concluded they could not "forbear expressing our strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe, than the people of any other country in Europe have to sustain". The Commission stated that bad relations between landlord and tenant were principally responsible. There was no hereditary loyalty, feudal tie, or mitigating tradition of paternalism as existed in Britain, as the Anglo-Irish aristocracy that supplanted the Gaelic aristocracy in the 17th century was of a different religion and newer. The Earl of Clare observed of landlords that "confiscation is their common title"

Oh, very good. Wikipedia - - again. I can see you spent a whole actual minute on compiling your reading list.

Gaelic aristocracy? Dear me, they were wiped out by Edward III, well, the men were, their women were kept as slags by the Norman Irish, who, I repeat, were not Anglo-Norman/English. The Norman Irish did what they always did, adapted, married into the new comers as they had married into the Gaels, and they changed their religion to keep their lands.

As to the rest, I'm not denying anything and did not conflate the "Ulster" Plantation with OC. If you want to insert red herrings, begin with the Bruce's - - which notional nationality were they? And how about the Black Irish - - Ireland's Moriori? And which ethnic minority founded Dublin, perhaps you might enlighten the thread?
When you've actually read a bit wider on the mess your sh1t hole nation was before Henry II (don't forget the Pope's involvement) afterwards and still is post back. Ireland actually makes the Balkans seem solvable. And the Norman Norman's were in Ireland lickerysplit straight after William the Bastard, that's nearly a 1,000 years ago - - is that in the nationalist grievance propaganda you get spoon fed in the 26's schools?
As you clearly think you're an educated Fenian, here's a riddle, told to me by an RC Padre (he was English born and bred and was rather disparaging occasionly about his Irish co-religionists):

Why has Ireland no snakes?
Because they all fled when the Irish arrived as they, the devil's favourite incarnation, found they couldn't compete when it came to treachery.
 
I think one thing we would all agree on, like him or loathe him, is that few of us (if any) would chuck his statue in the Thames which makes us all the better than those who delight in such behaviour.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Why has Ireland no snakes?
Because they all fled when the Irish arrived as they, the devil's favourite incarnation, found they couldn't compete when it came to treachery.

Not true...

The were eradicated because their women were jealous.

I'll assume it is our fault in some way that Irish women don't have tits.
 
Oh, very good. Wikipedia - - again. I can see you spent a whole actual minute on compiling your reading list.

Gaelic aristocracy? Dear me, they were wiped out by Edward III, well, the men were, their women were kept as slags by the Norman Irish, who, I repeat, were not Anglo-Norman/English. The Norman Irish did what they always did, adapted, married into the new comers as they had married into the Gaels, and they changed their religion to keep their lands.

As to the rest, I'm not denying anything and did not conflate the "Ulster" Plantation with OC. If you want to insert red herrings, begin with the Bruce's - - which notional nationality were they? And how about the Black Irish - - Ireland's Moriori? And which ethnic minority founded Dublin, perhaps you might enlighten the thread?
When you've actually read a bit wider on the mess your sh1t hole nation was before Henry II (don't forget the Pope's involvement) afterwards and still is post back. Ireland actually makes the Balkans seem solvable. And the Norman Norman's were in Ireland lickerysplit straight after William the Bastard, that's nearly a 1,000 years ago - - is that in the nationalist grievance propaganda you get spoon fed in the 26's schools?
As you clearly think you're an educated Fenian, here's a riddle, told to me by an RC Padre (he was English born and bred and was rather disparaging occasionly about his Irish co-religionists):

Why has Ireland no snakes?
Because they all fled when the Irish arrived as they, the devil's favourite incarnation, found they couldn't compete when it came to treachery.
Wikipedia's quite adequate for the present purposes. If you don't believe the Wikipedia version, you can look up the quoted sources. You might like to consult the 'Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Occupation of Land in Ireland', 1845, the Royal Commission I mentioned above. The Commissioner's report included a brief summary of how land and property had been dealt with in Ireland and mentioned the plantations, confiscations and the Penal Laws. It is much as I'd described. Maybe you'd believe their account, they were English.

You don't seem to believe the Anglo-Irish landed gentry's big estates existed; the evidence is all over the country.

Gaelic aristocracy? Why yes, the landowners prior to Cromwell, the Lords, Lairds, clan chiefs, Chieftains, the bosses, top men, whatever you'd like to call them. Speakers of Irish Gaelic and Catholics, like the natives. Supplanted by Cromwell's minions, who were none of those things.

Bruce? Scots Gaelic.

And yes, the 'Norman's were in Ireland lickerysplit straight after William the Bastard'. They wanted the land, the source of wealth, as did the Cromwell and the English some time later. So Cromwell took it with armed force. The motivation was just greed, it's the same as what the PRC have done to Tibet, their 'western treasure house'.

I've no idea what they teach in the RoI's schools, I went to schools in London.

And treachery? By the Irish towards their English overlords? Oh dear.
 

HCL

LE
Wikipedia's quite adequate for the present purposes. If you don't believe the Wikipedia version, you can look up the quoted sources. You might like to consult the 'Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Occupation of Land in Ireland', 1845, the Royal Commission I mentioned above. The Commissioner's report included a brief summary of how land and property had been dealt with in Ireland and mentioned the plantations, confiscations and the Penal Laws. It is much as I'd described. Maybe you'd believe their account, they were English.

You don't seem to believe the Anglo-Irish landed gentry's big estates existed; the evidence is all over the country.

Gaelic aristocracy? Why yes, the landowners prior to Cromwell, the Lords, Lairds, clan chiefs, Chieftains, the bosses, top men, whatever you'd like to call them. Speakers of Irish Gaelic and Catholics, like the natives. Supplanted by Cromwell's minions, who were none of those things.

Bruce? Scots Gaelic.

And yes, the 'Norman's were in Ireland lickerysplit straight after William the Bastard'. They wanted the land, the source of wealth, as did the Cromwell and the English some time later. So Cromwell took it with armed force. The motivation was just greed, it's the same as what the PRC have done to Tibet, their 'western treasure house'.

I've no idea what they teach in the RoI's schools, I went to schools in London.

And treachery? By the Irish towards their English overlords? Oh dear.

If you don't know about the Bruce's or the Black Irish then youre missing a massive chunk of the Irish "tragedy" . How you can class Normans as Gaelic is so typical of the Fenian mind.

Wikipedia a reliable source? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearie me. I'll stick to the millions of words on permanent ink and paper I've read, written by real Historians, both professional authors and keen amateur pamphleteers. Most of them still acknowledged inconvenient facts as truth. You clearly don't even have a passing acquaintance with facts or the truth.
 
If you don't know about the Bruce's or the Black Irish then youre missing a massive chunk of the Irish "tragedy" . How you can class Normans as Gaelic is so typical of the Fenian mind.

Wikipedia a reliable source? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearie me. I'll stick to the millions of words on permanent ink and paper I've read, written by real Historians, both professional authors and keen amateur pamphleteers. Most of them still acknowledged inconvenient facts as truth. You clearly don't even have a passing acquaintance with facts or the truth.
Bruce was Scottish, spoke Gaelic.
I know about the black Irish, they were thought to be descendants of Spanish Armada survivors, but I think DNA has disproved that theory. It's just a gene of unknown origin. It's irrelevant.

I did not say that Wikipedia was a reliable source, I did say that it was adequate. Some people seem to spend their lived altering Wikipedia to suit their agenda. If you disagree with what Wikipedia says, then you could quote a more reliable source.

Since you disputed what Wikipedia said about land ownership, I referred you to the Royal Commission report (page 1108 onwards, I believe), which says much the same. You've responded with some infantile insults. It's not a grown-up discussion.
 

Dwarf

LE
Oh well, OC lasted a few pages before it degenerated into a handbagging contest.

At least it proves two things;

1. The Irish question with Cromwell only as a part will always generate polemic.

2. Arrse is Arrse.
 

HCL

LE
Bruce was Scottish, spoke Gaelic.
I know about the black Irish, they were thought to be descendants of Spanish Armada survivors, but I think DNA has disproved that theory. It's just a gene of unknown origin. It's irrelevant.

I did not say that Wikipedia was a reliable source, I did say that it was adequate. Some people seem to spend their lived altering Wikipedia to suit their agenda. If you disagree with what Wikipedia says, then you could quote a more reliable source.

Since you disputed what Wikipedia said about land ownership, I referred you to the Royal Commission report (page 1108 onwards, I believe), which says much the same. You've responded with some infantile insults. It's not a grown-up discussion.

Bruce spoke Gaelic? Did he know that? And he was Scots Gaelic? Again, did he know? You are referring to Robert de Bruce, from that obscure Gaelic branch from Chelmsford in Normandy, the de Bruces that came across with William I, aren't you?

As for the Black Irish, the hint was, Ireland's "Moriori". Current thinking is that the Gaelic Irish were once just like the Normans, invaders, and the Black Irish are Ireland's Moriori. How's it feel, being descended from a race that's probably committed genocide?

I'm sure Wikipedia will have told you this already. Never mind, eh. If only I'd known Wiki was going to be invented, I could have saved myself many, many hundreds, thousands of hours reading real books and I'd live in a mansion bought with all the money I didn't spend on books. Books written by people a lot more cleverer than you or me but I doubt they would be as sarcastic as I am towards you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Threads

Top