Talk:Oliver Cromwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oliver Cromwell article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Military work group.

[edit] Religious beliefs

This article never explicity states which protestant sect Oliver Crowmell belongs to. Puritan is an ideology not an organization. From my own knowledge and the rest of the article it would seem that he was a Puritan but remained in the Anglican church but thats an educated guess. Does anyone have factual info? -- (Anon who forgot to sign)

"Cromwell's understanding of religion and politics were very closely intertwined. Cromwell was a committed "Puritan" Protestant, believing that salvation was open to all who obeyed the teachings of the Bible and acted according to their own (individual) conscience." The second part of this sentence seems misleading. As a Calvinist, Cromwell had a belief in church authority and so he did not view individuals as free to follow their own conscience irrespective of church authority. Furthermore, calvinists adhere to the doctrine of original sin and look to the Holy Spirit for sanctification and only to their own consciences when subject to God's rule. Can anyone improve this sentence? 88.105.135.149 13:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The current text might be a good description of Calvinism, but it is a very bad description of Cromwells religious and political ideas. Cromwell was a member of not individual sect, but was an "Independent". This means that he believed that every man should have the right to worship according to his own belief. Remember that Cromwell disestablished the church of England and gave religious freedom to all sects in the Interregnum. Church attendance was still cumpulsory, but people could choose which church they attended. Remember also that Cromwell also believed in toleration for Jews and readmitted them into England after an absence of several hundred years. However, he hated Catholicism, believed the Pope was in league with the devil and did not tolerate the practice of Catholicism. Jdorney 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He also defended Captain Ralph Margery, an anabaptist, from being cashiered as a result of his religious beliefs. --Train guard 12:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Oxford historian Christopher Hill has written a semi-popular account of his influential studies in this area in God's Englishman (ISBN 0140137114, Penguin, 1970)."

I don't think this sentence about Christopher Hill should be here as God's Englishman does not focus on Cromwell's religious beliefs and Hill is a bit outdated (or utterly crazy depending on how much you ascribe to a Marxist point of view). God's Englishman focuses on Cromwell more as a social figure rather than a religious one, and other writers on Cromwell such John Morrill are probably better to recommend. Korror 12:58 30 March 2006.

I could beg to differ with you on at least 3 counts, but then I'm just a humble physicist, with a left-wing bias, and perhaps getting a bit long in the tooth. If we're going to disagree, please let's agree an arbitrator. Linuxlad 22:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(I think I'd add that much of the scholarship in this article is pretty uneven anyway, so quoting a reputable source, even if he's not to your liking, is at least a step in the right direction :-))

Good point, I'd rather not remove Hill all together but simply balance him with other historians. I've listed Coward's book on Oliver Cromwell alongside Hill's. It's not too bad, readily available and should give a good picture of Cromwell outside of a Marxist framework. Korror 16:21 12 April 2006.

Fine - happy with that, thanks; Bob aka Linuxlad

[edit] Real unpopularity

"In 1661 his body was exhumed and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution."

Man, you know you've done something really *unpopular* when ...

Small anecdote...A friend of mine, whilst dining at on of Oxford`s colleges, was given an interesting speech. His host was saying that there was an old story that the head of Cromwell was supposed to have been buried somewhere under the floor of that particular room. At the end of the meal, he said,``And now, my friends, I would like you all to get up and JUMP!``

this is unverifiable, obviously, but still amusing.

[edit] Justification

The fact that the city's defenders continued to fight after the walls had been breached, in violation of the then norms of warfare, was Cromwell's justification for this act. --This piece could be the basis for a bit of ancient warfare rules and regs...

I assume that you are talking about his conduct at the siege of Drogheda. For a variety of both political and strategic reasons, it was necessary to obtain a quick victory. He thus demanded a surrender without terms, and stated that if this was refused, he would give 'no quarter'. This was an ancient usage of war, not so much in Britain, but certainly found from time to time on the continent of Europe. It meant that any defender 'taken in arms' would be killed, or perhaps disposed of as the General saw fit. In Britain, this tended to mean transportatation to the colonies as slave labour.

Note that (a) this was considered a perfectly legitimate action at the time, and (b)it did not apply to civilians.

Not true. At Drogheda, the resistance of the defenders forced Cromwell to send his men "through the breach" in the city's walls pounded out by English heavy artillery. B/c sending your men "through the breach" over the wall rubble was a hazardous action that always incurred heavy casualties, it was common practice at the time to offer quarter to the city beforehand, but if they made you send your men "through the breach", you would authorize your men to pilage, rape, and do what naught else they might so choose to do -- as punishment for inflicting such heavy losses to your troops.

At Drogheda, large numbers of the defenders were killed, but not all. There is no evidence that civilians were massacred, though a few were killed in the crossfire. The Roman Catholic priests were sought out for particular vengeance, but they were seen as part of the military garrison, since they had exhorted the defenders to continue to resist.

Generally speaking, Cromwell was regarded at the time as a humane commander, who behaved rather better than some other Royalist and Parliamentary generals. His army in Ireland were forbidden to plunder or loot, and some of them were punished for it. --Train guard 13:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue with both Drogheda and in Wexford in contemporay legal terms is that some of the town's defenders and population were killed after having surrendered. In Dogheda, the garrison of Millmount fort surrndered first andd were then killed. In Wexford, the town was in the process of surrendering when Cromwell's men broke in and sacked it. Both were violations of contemporary codes of conduct. Re the looting, this is correct, but after Cromwell left Ireland, Parliamentary armies there began a scorched earth policy that caused famine. They also issued declarations that any civilian caught helping the enemy would be killed. Not very humanitarian behaviour even by the standards of the day. Jdorney 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no evidence of a violation of contemporary codes of conduct. If you put to death members of the garrison after they cease fighting, that was considered permissable behaviour. Why? Because you have already offered them a choice of surrender or 'no quarter'. If they have refused your terms, that was considered their hard luck. As to civilians, very few were killed, as I have said. We are certainly not talking about any actions that could be compared with what went on in the Thirty Years War.

--Train guard 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree I'm afraid. First of all, there were no actual laws of war at the time, only customs and conventions.

The convention was that the better a garrison could defend itself, the better terms it got. Extreme ends of both scenarios, 1, garrison is well fortified and well supplied, can hold out indefinitely, surrender is negotiated with defenders allowed to leave with full arms and ammo, looting in town is prevented.

2. Other extreme, town resists until it is assaulted and taken, at this point all bets are off and anything can happen at the atacker's discretion.

However, at Drogheda, the garrison defending Millmount Fort surrendered after the town had been taken, was granted quarter and was then killed.

This is an extreme breach of faith. What happened at the Sack of Wexford is an even more extreme breach of faith - the town is in the process of negotiating surrender and is sacked anyway.

Re the evidence suggesting that very few civilians were killed in these incidents, 3,500 people died at Drogheda, of whom 2,800 were Royalist soldiers. You do the maths.

At Wexford, the townspeople presented a petition after the Restoration claiming that 1,500 civilans there were killed in the Sack.

Some historians (principally Tom Reilly) claim that these civilians were either armed, or were not killed deliberately. Either way, such actions should not just be excused, I don't think. Jdorney 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments above in brackets.

(As in fact, did happen in some instances.) (And 3., you do what Cromwell did. Offer a choice of surrender or 'no quarter') (But was this Cromwell's responsibility?) (Granted quarter by whom?) (What do ypu base these figures on? But, assuming that they are correct. That leaves 700. Include priests, people found mixed up with the garrison, and those caught in the crossfire. Do you imagine that there were many civilians, women, and children, in this total?) (And I think that tells you all you need to know.)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. It's history. You are not supposed to blame or excuse anyone. Leave that kind of thing to "1066 and All That".

--Train guard 12:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try again. There were convention and customs, for example famously set out by the Dutch lawyer and philosopher Grotius. However these were not "laws" in the sense that they were enforced by anyone or that violating them meant punishment.

What generally happened was that breach of custom meant that the perpetrator recieved reciprocal treatment. I.e. if you kill your prisoners, we'll kill ours. This is what happened in the early part of, for example the Dutch Revolt, or the Irish Rebellion of 1641.

Conduct on both sides tended to mellow when they realised theree were consequences for such actions. Siege warfare had its own conventions, as I've outlined above. Commanders offered terms based on the ability of the defenders to hold out. If they held out until the place had to be stormed they could expect very harsh treatment, as the chances of high casualties for the attacker were very high.

Now, Cromwell and his commanders did indeed grant lenient terms at such places as Waterford and Clonmel under these circumstances. At Limerick, where the defence went on for longer, Ireton executed some ofthe defenders as punishment, but did not sack the town.

Now what Cromwell did at Drogheda was therefore by no means unprecedented, but it was a bit extreme.

He had no obligation to spare the defenders, but choosing not to do so was certainly severe.

However, the killings at Millmount fort, when Cromwell himself took the surrender and hten had the dfenders killed was an atrocity, even by contemporary standards.

At Wexford, Cromwell was negotiating with the town for surrender, his troops began attacking it, he made no attempt to stop them or to punish them.

Therefore this is also an atrocity. A good analogy is the sack of Antwerp in 1575, when mutinying Spanish troops sacked the city. Also an atrocity.

Re civilian casualties, the figures I've quoted come from Antonia Frazer's, "Cromwell, our Chief of Men"

(A decent book, but not to be relied on.)

and James Scott Wheeler's '"Cromwell in Ireland". I take it by your comment that you don't believe the figure of 1,500. Well that's up to you. But the town was so badly burned and looted that the New Model Army could not use it for winter quarters -which would indicate that the sack was fairly indiscriminate. Even Reilly accepts that there are many accounts of women and children being killed there.

(By design?)

Re the 700 at Drogheda, perhaps no women and children were killed, I doubt it though, soldiers of that time being the way they were.

Are you saying that killing unarmed priests is a legitimate act of war?

Even in the Thirty Years War the convention was to expell opposing clergy, not to kill them.

Finally, the reason I'm stressing these points is that you are arguing that Cromwell was a humane commander and that his campaign in Ireland was above reproach.

I am just pointing out there are serious doubts about this point of view. Cromwell's actions have no doubt been exaggerated, but his campaign in Ireland was severe. That of his commanders in he period 1650-53 even more so. Jdorney 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments above in brackets.

(But they were referred to as such at the time. Are we arguing about semantics? (I am not aware that Cromwell 'sacked' Drogheda.) (And these terms could include a choice of an offer of surrender or 'no quarter' being given. What is so hard to understand about that?) (Agreed.) (In seventeenth century terms?) (In seventeenth century terms?) (So was he in overall control or not?) (You cannot possibly compare Wexford with the 'Spanish Fury'.) (Well, they were given their chance to live, and they ignored it....) (And how were they?) (They were acting in the role of political commisars to the garrison. Cromwell might say thhat they rendered unto Caesar and paid the price...)) (No I'm not. I'm arguing that he might be considered a humane commander by the standards of the time.)

Actually, my motive is to 'defuse' Cromwell. He has been used in the 'patriot game' in Ireland for far too long...

--Train guard 09:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. A few quick points. Re Wexford, yes Cromwell was in overall command and therefore responsible for the conduct of his troops. But no the killing of civilians there was not planned by him. Re soldiers at the time, they were brutal, usually badly disciplined and murderous.

Re priests, i think your view is a bit extreme. In any case they were hunted down and killed wherever they were found in 1649-53 which seems to me like bigoted persecuton. Last point on Drogheda, yes it was extrme in 17th century terms. While he had the option of killing all the defenders, actually giving orders to do so was at one extreme of a range of measures open to him once the town was in his hands. Others included the execution of the towns commanders (as at Limerick) or the "decimation", killing one in every ten men. But once again, the men in Millmount fort were promised quarter and surrendered on those terms and were then killed.

Re the "Spanish fury", I think the conduct of Spanish troops at Antwerp is a good analogy. On the other hand, it is true that Alva in the early 1570s used far more indiscriminate terror in the Netherlands than Cromwell did in Ireland.

One final point re the the place Cromwell had in Irish popular memory. It was only partly the result of his actions at Drogheda and Wexford. These were only two salient examples picked out to show him in the worst possible light. The reality is that "Cromwell" in the Irish context was shorthand for a war that killed or exiled up to third of the population, criminalised the majority religion and transferred land ownership and political power to a small colonial elite. In some ways singling out Cromwell himself as to blame for all these things is unfair, but this is why he was remembered with such hostility in Ireland and why most Irish people still wouldn't accept that he was an "honourable enemy". Jdorney 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is Cromwell's responsibility -- but you must put his actions in context. First, the Irish to this day are known as the "FIGHTING Irish". It has always taken a great deal of military force to subdue the Irish. Cromwell hoped that the brutality shown at Drogheda and Wexford would "shock and awe", if you will, the Irish into quick submission. And WHY was this NECESSARY? B/c throughout his Irish campaign, Cromwell was being hounded by the English Parliament to return to England to defend the Realm against the new Catholic Royalist threat from the Stuart King, Charles 2, crowned by the Scots. (Note, too, that the Scottish PROTESTANT Presbyterians crowning a CATHOLIC Stuart as their king was a BETRAYAL of their Protestant brethren in England. Note further that Cromwell called them [paraphrase] "misguided fellow brothers" -- and this was born out by historical events, for when Charles 2 did successfully take the throne in 1660, Charles 2 BETRAYED the very PROTESTANT Presbyterians he so hated, and USED, as TOOLS, leading to the brutal suppression of the COVENANTERS under, as one example, James Cameron.) Thus, we see that Cromwell was under intense TIME PRESSURE to defeat the Catholic strongholds in Ireland IN TIME to save 1) the PROTESTANT Reformation in 2) England. So, yes, Cromwell was hard, because he HAD to be hard, given the TIME PRESSURE together with the "savage" nature of the Irish opposition. Moreover, you must recall in all objective even-handedness, that Charles 1 had in fact negotiated with the IRISH CATHOLICS to back him during the civil war, and that therefore an IRISH CATHOLIC army had prepared to INVADE England... AFTER they had, in point of fact, massacred PROTESTANT ENGLISH settlers in Ulster (Northern Ireland). About 4,000 English Protestants were killed... a number which was, in point of fact, inflated by English propaganda to as high as 154,000. So, also weighing on Cromwell's mind was REVENGE for Irish CATHOLIC brutality in N. Ireland and an Irish CATHOLIC invasion plan against England. In short, if Cromwell had attempted to fight a "gentleman's (key word: GENTLE) war" in Ireland, there is no way he could have done so in time, much less with England's limited resources. Cromwell's plan DID work... he drove the Catholic legions from Ireland in time to attack Charles 2 in Scotland. One must be very wary of second guessing success. Note that, as the main article acknowledges, complaints against Cromwell come just as much from the fact that Cromwell took the lands of wealthy Irish CATHOLICS and gave them to his men as PAY... noting also that England's inability to PAY their troops was causing MUTINIES. Thus, Cromwell, short on gold, HAD to offer SOME payment to his men to incentivize them to defend the Realm and their Protestant Beliefs. And the main point being that Cromwell ANGERED CATHOLIC MONEY in Ireland... and it is THEY (Catholic MONEY) who have spun things to lambaste arch-PROTESTANT patriot Cromwell. Yes Cromwell was hard, yes he HAD to be, to guard the Puritans' gains in England. Cromwell was VERY open minded for his day -- proven by his inviting back Jews to England after Edward 1 "Longshanks" had evicted them in about 1300 CE. Sorry to write so much, but, FYI, Edward 1 is the "Cruel Pagan" from Braveheart (Mel Gibson) who hammered Scotland and INVENTED the punishment of "hanging, drawing, and quartering" for William Wallace. Edward 1, be it known, was a NORMAN CATHOLIC. Not that the movie is terribly accurate in detail, but it captures that fact quite well. If you like the phrase "ALBA GU BRATH!", you should NOT like Norman CATHOLICS, in case anyone needs me to point that out. Furthermore, the English only invaded Ireland in 1171 under the Norman CATHOLIC king Henry 2 in connection with the assassination of Thomas Becket on 29 December, 1170... and do recall what the Norman CATHOLICS did to then-Orthodox England starting in 1066 as William "the Conquistador" led his "crusade" against "Heretic England" under the auspices of CATHOLIC pope Alexander 2. So, in sum, Cromwell _was_ harsh... but, as other posters here have clearly recognized, Cromwell was still _not_ "beyond the pale". He "pushed the envelope" with his brutality, he selected the _most_ brutal course of action open to him given the Laws of War of the era, in order to win quickly in time to attack the Stuarts in Scotland. But Cromwell did not exceed the pale.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

There seems to be quite a lot of historical inaccuracy in the above: for one thing, the Norman Henry ii came to Ireland, with his Bull ("Laudabiliter) to stop Stongbow and his allies setting up another Norman Kingdom in Ireland.--PeadarMaguidhir 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic

"the country became Europe's first republic as the Commonwealth of England" Oh? Venice at least called itself a republic, no? -- Wondering simply, Infrogmation 00:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Someone just changed it to "Europe's second republic since the fall of the Roman Empire, after the Republic of the United Provinces (1581)."

I've taken it out, just saying that republics were rare. Certainly Cromwell's government was not the first in Europe to call itself a republic. -- Infrogmation 17:43, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

POland considered itself republic :-) Szopen 12:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] After Death

He would be interred at Tyburn - wasn't his body just thrown into a common pit and nobody knows which is his? RickK 06:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Correct. Cromwell's headless body is now somewhere underneath a road. Peter Manchester 11:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It says that he was alive from 1599-1658 at the top of the article, but about two sentences down it says that he died in 1653. Which is right? Isabella123

1658 but I think that you are becoming confused. It says that he became Lord Protector in 1653 and remained Lord Protector until his death (in 1658); it does not say that he died in 1653. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Deluge

I just read Polish book "Poland in XVII century" and spotted sentence "Everyone knows, what was Cromwell role in the Deluge". Well, i don't. What were his actions despite calling for "removing the Polish horn from Catholic beast's head"? Szopen 12:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting question. While he would certainly have been in favour of war on Catholic Poland, I don't know whether that support would have gone beyond verbal encouragement. If you find anything worthwhile, it would be good to add it to this article. -- Derek Ross

[edit] Cromwell in EIRE

The English project of dispossessing Catholics of their land and replacing them with Protestants (let's see if they notice the difference!) was most successful in Ulster. Scottish tenants and laborers, themselves displaced by the English but too polite to mention it, joined the rag-tag mix of adventurers, ne'er-do-wells, and ex-soldiers. The northern part of the settlement project was known as the Ulster Plantation. In 1641, a loose-knit group of Gaelic-Irish chiefs led the now landless Irish in a revolt in Ulster.

Owen Roe O'Neill returned from the Continent to lead the insurrection, Rome's blessing in hand. The rebels advanced south and in 1642 formed the Confederation of Kilkenny, an uneasy alliance between the Church and Irish and Old English lords. Some English lords believed they were rebelling against a treasonous viceroy but remaining loyal to the King, and the concurrent English Civil War just made a really big mess of things. Oliver Cromwell's victory in England made the negotiations between King and Confederation something of a moot point. After a celebratory glass of sparkling white wine, Ollie and his Puritan army turned to Ireland.

Following standard Cromwellian procedure, the Lord Protectorate destroyed anything he did not occupy, and then some. Catholics were massacred and whole towns razed. Entire tracts of land were confiscated, gift-wrapped, and handed out to soldiers and Protestant vagabonds. Native Irish landowners were presented with the option of going "to Hell or to Connacht," both desolate and infertile, one with a slightly more tropical climate. By 1660, the vast majority of Irish land was owned, maintained, and policed by Protestant immigrants. After sending naughty Oliver to his room, Restored King Charles II passed the 1665 Act of Explanation. The Act required Protestants to relinquish one-third of their land to the "innocent papists." The Catholics did not hold their breath for this to happen.

Since there is no source for the above I guess we can safely ignore it.

Exile 13:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But Exile you must give credit for NPOV – blame was laid on the Protectorate and not Cromwell himself : ) -- garryq 15:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And its all basically true! Boldymumbles 20:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of detail on Irish crusades

There's a great big void here in this article where Ireland is concerned. He is perhaps the most reviled figure in all of Ireland - yet there's only a sentence or two on what he did here!

No mention of the fact that he and his men made a habit of stabling their horses in, and desecrating, many churches (Kilkenny Cathedral and a church in Galway to name two).

The "to hell or to connacht" quote is well known, as is his comment on the Burren in County Clare - "not enough trees to hang a man, water to drown him, or soil to bury him."

Considering the fact that many in England seem to almost view him as a saint, it'd be nice to have some of this awful behaviour detailed.

zoney ▓█▒ talk 21:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well don't just moan about it. Since you know the details add them in. And since he must be the only man that the English dug up and hanged posthumously, I would guess that there were at least a couple of them who thought him slightly less than saintly at the time. Present day Republicans may think better of him but he's no saint to the average Monarchist. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:11, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

I need some references and don't have the time to do the work, I'm busy with work and real-life. If I get around to it I shall look at this area, but for now, I've placed the concerns here in case someone else can do it. zoney ▓█▒ talk 08:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:17, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Cromwell seemed to make a habit of stabling his troops' horses in churches, he did the same in England too (and for all I know Wales and Scotland as well). Perhaps it goes along with his destruction of statues and paintings in churches and cathedrals. Chris Jefferies 20:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I corrected "decapitated head" to "severed head." *Bodies* are decapitated. *Heads* are severed. 206.106.76.38 02:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's been the usual debate on wikipedia on what Oliver Cromwell did and didn't do in Ireland. Some people have taken the traditional irish view that he was an utter monster, while others have gone too far in the other direction, saying that he "allegedly" committed massacres. Here's the facts:

There's no allegedly about it. Cromwell DID order the massacre of the defenders of Drogheda. He admitted as much himself. The debate is only over whether he also massacred the town's civilian population and whether what he did was unusually brutal by the standards of the day. On the first point, Cromwell did order the killing of "any that were in arms in the town" and of Catholic priests. There is also no doubt that some townspeople were killed in the sack. However, Cromwell was adamant that he did not ORDER the killing of civilians. On the second point, all sides in contemporary warfare did not give quarter to garrisons that had been taken by storm, so, if not exusable by modern standards, Cromwell's actions were not unusual at the time.

At Wexford, there is uncertainty about whether Cromwell is responsable for the massacre, but there's no doubt whatsoever that one. Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while it was trying to surrender, butchering the garrison, killing the townspeople and burning the town. While this was not on Cromwell's orders, as commanding officer he bears responsability for the actions of the men under his command.

But these are only the high profile cases and the ones that relate to Cromwell himself. The policy of Cromwell's officers in Ireland was less high profile, but more responable than the man himself for the massive death toll of the war in Ireland. The English Parliament passed an "ordinance of no quarter" against any Irish troops taken prisoner 1642. Henry Ireton initiated the policy of devastating the countryside and attacking civilians who were helping the Irish guerrillas or "tories". Destroying food stuffs created a man made famine in Ireland from 1650. This was continued by people by Charles Coote and Hewson. So, although Cromwell should not be demonised, there IS some validity in the traditional Irish view of the Cromwellian conquest as genocide.

It is also true that Cromwell himself was also capable of humanity as well as cruelty in Ireland. He stipulated that Parliamentary troops had to pay for supplies they got from civilians and even hanged some men that looted the locals. He also presided over the orderly surrenders of Kilkenny and Clonmel (even after taking severe losses there). However, he cannott be exhonerated for the actions of his officers and the massive loss of life that his campaign in Ireland produced. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_Confederate_Wars"Jdorney

one more small point: why does the section on Ireland and scotland have nothing about scotland?? Jdorney

<Sigh>, Why don't you just add the above to the article ? Then there would be plenty about Ireland there. I'm sure that if anybody really objects to it, you will find out soon enough. Then you can discuss it on the talk page. As for nothing about Scotland. Well I'd be happy to add stuff about the Cromwellian campaign in Scotland if I knew anything. But I don't. Plus this article is supposed to be about Cromwell himself rather than his campaigns, so while it should discuss them for the light they throw on his character, it doesn't need to go into too much detail. For the detail it should link to articles specifically on the campaigns themselves which can dissect them in all their gory detail. Oh, wait a minute -- it already does. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Derek, for exactly the reason you say, I didn't want to clog up the article any more than it is already. But recently people have been going around the pages on Cromwell's campaigns stickig in lines like "Cromwell allegedly committed massacres in Ireland which have since been disproved". I've got a pain in my behind removing stuff like this, so I thought I'd just put note here to explain myself. I think the talk page is the best place for it rather than the article. If you want, I'll put in a bit here about Scotland myself. Jdorney

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I can understand why you're getting tired of having to continually remove silly stuff like that. I'll add the Cromwellian related pages to my watchlist so that I can give you a hand. Thanks for the offer to put in something about Scotland. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cromwell's brutal actions are very much mitigated in this section. Need I post details of the amputations and executions he performed on the clergy? Also, James Joyce's Ulysses mentions Cromwell putting the women and children of Drogheda to the sword. Ulysses, Penguin Books, pg. 433

[edit] Modern View??

There's quite a lot of POV in this article overall, and the section 'Modern View' is also particularly thin. There's very little evidence of recent work by eg the late Christopher Hill, (or even Eduard Bernstein's 'Cromwell & Communism').Is anyone thinking to rewrite?.

And, for what it's worth (very POV) the English left/centre-left would probably now say of Cromwell - 'a bastard - but one of ours!' Linuxlad 14:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone is planning to rewrite -- unless you are -- but it would probably be a good thing if they did. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the 'Modern View' and 'Cromwell and the development of the United States' sections should simply be deleted; as they are, they're no good, and it would be better to rewrite them from scratch. The former section is ridiculous and the latter seems to be an advertisement for two books. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the 'absolute monarchy'... was the situation not quite far from this even by the time of the outbreak of the Civil War? Charles I, his actions loathed though they may have been by a few, never declared himself a Catholic outright.

Weren't the jury at the trial of the regicides reminded of the principle that 'the king can do no wrong'? - sounds pretty absolute to me. Linuxlad 14:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is an apt demonstration that Charles harboured the absolute psyche, yes, but not the absolute power. To say such a claim rendered Charles I an 'actual', devout, practising, uncontested absolute ruler in the vein of the period's Louis XIVs and in the manner the article mistakenly perceives is an entirely different matter.

I'd like to think I've reached a compromise in the main article in talking of absolute "claims". It is, at least, a more universal, encompassing view that takes account of history's makeup, one that is indeed flaccid and of captivation. It may be worth adding, though, that few historians dub Charles I, or indeed any Stuart monarch, as 'absolute'. To have designs on the title is certainly not in the same vicinity as 'absolute' full stop, I'm sure you would agree.

Well of course I've committed a slight 'howler' here as I'm sure many recognise - the principle that the King can do no wrong still remains in UK law as providing immunity for the Crown and its agencies...

I still feel that the overall tone of the article is too damning - Cromwell did put down mutiny in the Army, but not harshly by the standards of the time; he didn't warm to the leveller position, but no-one would, fully, for many years more; he was instrumental in getting the King executed, but without that things would have unpicked. Overall, the effects of his actions, whether wholly intended or not, were 'progressive' in the left-liberal sense, and left England significantly further down the road of being a Parliamentary democracy.

[edit] Religion

It's absurd that this page doesn't even make mention of religion factions. You can't have talk about Cromwell without mentioning his relation with the Puritans, Catholics, etc. Can somebody who knows their history please correct this?

[edit] Crum well

In 1960 the bodilessbonce was buried again- in a biscuit tin! the tin was hidden in a secret spot outside Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge. (horrible histories)

  r dese facts even rite cos im doin ma wrk n i need 2 no if dey is correct

plz txt bak n tell me xxx

im doing my home work too but i think these are rong

[edit] Cromwell's character, oratory etc

These need references - they read very POV. Linuxlad 16:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) yeh i think they are wrong too but hi

i am doing my homework and I need 2 know if they are right or wrong

†I am doin my homework to and i need to know if they are right†

[edit] Minor inaccuracy

By the end of the first civil war in 1646, the King was a prisoner of the Parliament.

This isn't quite true, though, is it? The King was, until 1647, I think, a prisoner of the Scots, wasn't he? Certainly he was a prisoner of the Scots for some time after the end of the first civil war. The Scots were most certainly not the Parliament. That being said, I don't think a detailed explanation of how Charles surrendered to the Scots, and then was given over by them to Parliament rather later, is necessary. I just don't think the article should say something which is specifically inaccurate. So how would be a better way to phrase this? john k 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Tudor

Cromwell's supposed connections to the House of Tudor are suspicious, as usurpers often claim kinship with the kings they displace (IIRC, Napoleon's supporters also claimed he was a descendant of Louis XIV).

What evidence do we have for this claim? Bastie 21:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would anybody want to claim descent from the Tudors, arch interlopers that they were? You might as well make a claim to Guillaume le Conquérant if you're going to make it up. :-)

I haven't been able to find any reference to descent from the Tudors in the Antonia Fraser biography, thought there is reference to his mothers side of the family & claims (not by Cromwell) of descent from the Stuarts, I'll note this & as the whole passage on the tudor descent is anchored by an alledgedly I'll trim this down a bit. AllanHainey 07:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidney Sussex College

We seem to have lost the _fact_ about Sidney Sussex College, amid all the speculative genealogy :-). I've tried to reinstate it from memory. Linuxlad 13:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

†I heard in history class that he was not related to the tudor family but i don't know†

[edit] When did Cromwell become Lord Protector ? 1653 or 1657 ?

In the first paragraph, it states that Cromwell "ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland as Lord Protector, from 1653 December 16 until his death". In the "Political rule" section, it says "In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown .... After six weeks of deliberation, he rejected the offer. Instead, he was ceremonially installed as "Lord Protector" at Westminster Abbey...." So when exactly did Cromwell become Lord Protector ? 1653 or 1657 ? I wonder if Cromwell got the title under the Instrument of Government in 1653, and then had the title reaffirmed in 1657 with the adoption of the Humble Petition and Advice. Could some familiar with the history of Cromwellian England fix this up, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Hill ('God's Englishman') says 1649-53 - Lord General; 1653-5 Lord Protector; and (tongue in cheek) king? 1656-8 Linuxlad

He definitely became Lord Protector in 1653. It's possible that there was some sort of ceremony in 1657... john k 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also possible that the article is just badly written and misleading. john k 18:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cromwell did become Lord Protector in 1653, he was granted the position by a legislative instrument of the Parliament & it had certain limitations on his powers & specified his rights, etc. In 1657 there was a lot of pressure for Cromwell to take over & rule as King, though for a variety of reasons (his religious views & opposition of the heads of the army) he refused to take the crown. After this he was re-installed as Lord Protector with a different (& broader) set of rights & powers, for example he could nominate his own successor. On both occasions he had a ceremony, though the 2nd was much more grand & copied a lot of the old coronation ceremony. It was in effect a coronation without using the title of King or the crown. Incidentally this ceremony took place in Westminster Hall not Westminster Abbey. This is in contrast with his 1st installation ceremony which was quite low key, short & didn't seek to copy the old royal coronation style. AllanHainey 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Oops! I retract the edit comment, as I hadn't seen the explicit permission in the image description. However, I still think they're insufficiently relevant, and posted by Brockmanah (talk • contribs) as WP:POINT because I cited the absence of such pictures in Oliver Cromwell as a reason for not including them in Sir William Brockman. Tearlach 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added them before reading this explanation thinking the deletion was only for copyright. But I do think they add a nice touch to the

military section. Brockmanah 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

i dont get it

this site doesnt really make sense to me im doing ma homework nd all i want is 10 good facts on cromwell...where are thy here???? help me please i need a nice list

[edit] Bishop's War

The article states about Bishop's War:

The failure to solve this crisis led directly to civil war breaking out between English "Parliamentarians" (supporters of the power of Parliament) and British "Royalists" (supporters of the King)

WHY is this so and why does it mention English "Parliamentarians"' and British "Royalists"

Presumably because the Parliament concerned only governed England whereas the monarch governed Britain (and Ireland). So the English Parliament ended up fighting English, Scottish and Irish Royalists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is wholly odd and what's more simplistic. Changing it to MPs and magnates who wished to challenge Charles' interpretation of the monarch's role in the English constitution concentrated in London, the South-East and Midlands and 'Royalists', other MPs and magnates defended Charles' perceived rights and were themselves concentrated in Wales, the North and Cornwall. --Peteranthony 14:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that this is true, that is interesting, because roughly, in round numbers, the Parliamentary Protestants come from the lands of the Anglo-Saxon conquests of the 5th century CE, and the Royalist Cavalier Catholics (and "High Anglicans") come from the old post-Roman British Celtic lands.

Not entirely true either. Royalists and Parliamentarians were present throughout England, including royalists in the south and parliamentarians in the north. Moreover, the main dividing line when people had to choose sides in the war was religion. Most MPs were opposed to aspects of Charles' rule, including his taxation policies, but the people who took up arms against him (Parliamentarians) were generally those who were most hostile to his religious policies. Basically, the Royalists saw themselves as defending the King's rights, the constitution and the Church of England. The Parliamentarians felt they were fighting for the rights of Parliament and for true Protestantism -or in some cases, freedom of religion. The Parliamentary aspect was fairly novel, as the Parliament was traditionally called entirely at the discretion of the monarch and its only role was to vote on new laws and new taxes.

Divsions in IReland and Soctland are a different matter and this article is not hte place for them Jdorney 13:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs about Cromwell

What does the Morrissey lyric mean:

I've been dreaming of a time when/ The English are sick to death of Labour/ and Tories/ and spit upon the name Oliver Cromwell/ and denounce this royal line that still/ salute him/ and will salute him forever/

Because Cromwell was against the monarchy, wasn't he, and this article states that after his death his body was exhumed and hung, drawn and quartered. So does anyone know why Morrissey wrote that "this royal line" still salute Cromwell? It doesn't make sense?

I assume that Marrissey is referring to the present royal line of England and not the Stuarts who fled in 1688. However, I don't recall any show of support for Cromwell among the last few rulers so I assume that Morrissey is stretching his point a bit. - Korror 3/30/06

I've always assumed that Morrissey was making the point that the anti-catholic stance of today's monarchy reflects the stance of Cromwell, not support for the man himself. --Brideshead 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources/POV

Even to this day, it is unwise to mention the name Oliver Cromwell in certain Irish or Scottish pubs. - are there sources for this very POV statement? If not I'm going to delete it, I think that it's nonsense, casual observation not cited fact. --Brideshead 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While I don't claim to have visited all of the UK's and Ireland's pubs, nor made mention of Cromwell in all of the ones that I have, it does seem a bit, well, unverified to say the least. Delete away I reckon. --Plumbago 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell and Scotland

I've made several small changes to this section, which, in general, I do not believe to be very well informed. ( the section on the execution of the king also contains a number of factual inaccuracies.)

a. Why has "Charles II" been so styled? (With quotation marks.)

b. The Scots wanted Charles as their king after the execution of his father, and recognized his English and Irish titles, but made no declaration that they intended to impose him on the English by force. The very presence of Charles in Scotland was a threat to the security of the Commonwealth, and it was for this reason alone that Cromwell invaded.

c. The Scots and English armies at Dunbar were roughly equal in numbers. At Worcester Cromwell commmanded considerably more men than Charles, drawn from both the New Model Army and local militias.

d. Cromwell did not personally treat prisoners badly. All prisoners of war at this time-especially those taken in civil conflicts-did not fare very well, because the state apparatus was too primitive to deal with them properly. In the British Isles transportion to the Americas was one way of dealing with an akward logistical problem . Many of those Cromwell took at Dunbar-those considered to be no danger- were simply allowed to go home.

e. Monck's sack of Dundee was no more vicious than the violent assault of any strongpoint at this time. I also believe the assaults on Drogheda and Wexford were fairly typical for the times, and subject to later exaggeration. The fall of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years War illustrates the real and wholesale horror that could follow from a sack.

Finally, I take issue with the suggestion that Cromwell is remembered in Scotland as a "remorseless and ruthless" enemy. It may pain many Scots to admit it, but the rule of the Protectorate was generally fair and largely peaceful. Rcpaterson 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Traitor Oliver Cromwell was nothing more than a traitor and a Dictata; one could call him the British Franco, Hitler, Mussonlini or Samam Hussien. The statue of him outside Parliement should be removed and destroyed.

You obviously know nothing either about the life of Oliver Cromwell or the times in which he lived. I suspect, also, that you are in deep ignorance about the nature and causes of modern dictatorship. I will always respond to serious points of debate. Your remarks are as puerile and ill-educated as your spelling. This exchange is at an end. Rcpaterson 23:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justice for Cromwell.

My original editing of this piece was intended to eliminate some of the misconceptions about Cromwell and Scotland. In the process I became acutely aware that there were wider issues that had to be addressed, which I hinted at in my comments on this page (see above). As no-one has risen to the challenge I've taken on the task. Here, in summary, is a list of my corrections and amendments.

First and foremost I have tried to eliminate some of the akward prose, especially around my points of correction. Much of what remains is still, I believe, of a poorish quality. More to the point, I am still not convinced-despite my corrections-that this is the 'right' article about one of the most important figures in British history. Too much space is devoted to marginal issues like his background and antecedents, and not enough on the political changes and transformations of the 1640s and 1650s. The author(s) have, moreover, failed to understand Cromwell's significance as a soldier, leading to an astonishingly inaccurate assessment, touched on below.

DEATH Cromwell died of a disease with symptoms similar to that of malaria; beyond that we cannot go. The poisoning theory is both recent and highly speculative.

IRONSIDES Cromwell's cavalry troop was not known as the Ironsides until after the Battle of Marston Moor. At this battle he was originally placed on the right wing, moving to the left in the final stages.

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE It is complete nonsense to say that Cromwell retained his commission after the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance by 'a series of lucky coincidences' (whatever that is supposed to mean). He was ordered to remain in post by the Committee of Both Kingdoms, the executive authority, unwilling to dispense with so talented a soldier. It is imporatnt to understand that this ordinance was aimed principally against the peers on the Parliamentary camp, men like Essex and Manchester, who were considered lukewarm. Cromwell's commission was renewed repeatedly for forty day periods until 1647, when his appointment as Lieutenant-General of Cavalry was put on a permanant footing.

RELIGiON Far too strong a connection is made between Cromwell and Calvinism. His own faith was far less structured, and infinitely more flexible. We know he was a puritan; we know he took inspiration from the Bible; and we know that he believed success was born of Providence-that God was acting throgh his chosen agents. We know little more than this. He was prepared to admit to his army men from a whole variety of unorthodox Protestant sects, to the considerable alarm of the Calvinist Scots.

One group he most assuredly did not call on was, as the article alleged, the Quakers. Not for any prejudice on his part, I have to stress, but for the simple reason that the sect did not exist in a fully fledged form until the 1650s, and were quick to embrace pacifist convictions. I am highly surprised that this anachronism has not been noted before this. Also to place Quakers in the same 'authoritarian' bracket as the Presbyterians I find bizarre in the extreme.

Charles did not introduce 'Catholic-style Bishops and Prayer Books'. These were a well-established part of Anglican practice.

The suggestion that Cromwell somehow outlawed Catholicism is also ridiculous. Whatever action was taken against priests and the mass, people continued to live and believe as Catholics, both in England and Ireland, throughout the Commonwealth and Protectorate.

THE SOLDIER Cromwell proved himself as a brilliant commander, with an almost intuitive understanding of both strategy and tactics. I cannot emphasize enough just how ridiculous the statement is that 'his lack of experience almost brought him defeat at Dunbar'. Dunbar, if anything, was Cromwell's masterpiece, far greater in its way than Worcester a year later. For once it seems appropriate to use a cliche-at Dunbar he really did snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. During the campaign around Edinburgh in the summer of 1650 his opponent, David Leslie, initially behaved with considerable skill, placing his army behind a fortified line between Edinburgh and Leith. Unable to risk an attack on this strong position, Cromwell attempted to lure Leslie out by maneuvering to the south. Although Lesle redeployed his army, the defensive position taken was as strong as before. With many of his men falling sick Cromwell returned to his base at the port of Dunbar, where his supply ships were based. Leslie followed, positioning his army on a hill overlooking the town. Believing Cromwell's army to be weak enough to attack he began a downward redeployment on the evening of 2 September. The following morning Cromwell spotted his opportunity and ordered an attack. His victory was overwhelming.

There must surely be some Wikipedia convention on the naming of battles, to prevent them appearing like Holywood movie sequels. Cromwell fought at the Second Battle of Newbury, not, for the love of God, Newbury II.

EXECUTION OF THE KING It is in this area that the article reached the depths of befuddlement. The second Civil War did not break out after Charles escaped from prison: he was being held captive in Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight at the time. Charles was placed on trial for treason in January 1649. In the prior month those who wanted to continue negotiations with him were expelled from the House in the course of Pride's Purge. The Rump did not try Charles itself; it appointed a court, some of whose members were MPs, but not all. Soldiers were not in attendence when the vote on the verdict was taken.

IRELAND AND SCOTLAND Scotland was an independent nation prior to Cromwell's conquest; Ireland was not. The population of Ireland in the seventeenth century was probably in the region of four million people. Are we really to accept the contention that Cromwell's campaign led to the death or exile of 'up to a third' of this number? If this is the case much, much stronger evidence is required. The hopeless formula 'may have resulted in' will simply not do.

Unlike Ireland, Cromwell left no lasting legacy of bitterness in Scotland. More than this, the rule of the Commonwealth and Protectorate was relatively benign.

DICTATOR This he may have become, but not by intention or design. He always sought a parliamentary solution to the constitutional question. No sooner was the Rump expelled in 1653 than the Nominated Parliament was summoned. It was only when this failed did the Protectorate come into being. Neither of the Protectorate Parliaments succeeded because of the conflict between the need to control expenditure and the maintenance of a large standing army. Cromwell could not risk the Revolution, and his own position, by giving Parliament control of the army. His record in dismissing Parliaments is, in fact better than that of Charles. Setting aside the Barebones Parliament, which dissolved itself, Cromwell dismissed only three, compared with four for the King.

DUTCH WAR Cromwell did not bring about the Dutch War of 1652. On the contrary he was disappointed that the country had gone to war with a fellow Protestant nation. Remember, he was not Lord Protector in 1652, only one member of the Council of State.

POSTHUMOUS EXECUTION Cromwell's remains were not 'hanged, drawn and quartered.' For reasons I really have no wish to expand on a dead body cannot be 'drawn'. His remains were hanged in chains at Tyburn. Some of the living regicides suffered the full penalty of the law. Rcpaterson 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An important thing to remember on wikipedia is that people will regularly add nonsense to articles, intentionally or unintentionally. When you see something way off, like Cromwell lost the battle of Dunbar, you should just get rid of it.

However, on some other points, I must take issue with you.

"The suggestion that Cromwell somehow outlawed Catholicism is also ridiculous. Whatever action was taken against priests and the mass, people continued to live and believe as Catholics, both in England and Ireland, throughout the Commonwealth and Protectorate".

Cromwell banned the practice of Catholicism, including the mass. His troops in Ireland executed Catholic clergy where they captured them. In addition a range of civil discrimination was apssed against Catholics in Ireland, including mass land confiscations, banning them from all public office and even banning them from living in towns. If people kept practicing Catholicism in Ireland in the interregnum it was no thanks to Cromwell.

"The population of Ireland in the seventeenth century was probably in the region of four million people. Are we really to accept the contention that Cromwell's campaign led to the death or exile of 'up to a third' of this number? If this is the case much, much stronger evidence is required. The hopeless formula 'may have resulted in' will simply not do."

This is incorrect. The population of mid 17th century Ireland was under two million. It didn't reach four million until well into the 18th century. William Petty estimated that up to third of this population (or about 600,000 people), had vanished by the time he did his demographic survey in the 1650s. We have no way of verifyng this, so "may have" is the best we can do. If necessary I will provide detailed references. Some more recent estimates thnk that petty may have over-estimated and and that the death toll was closer to 400,000. The lowest estimates about 200,000. Admittedly not all of these deaths are only attributable to the Cromwelliam phase of the war. All the accounts of the 1650s by Parliamentarian and Irish sources speak of a terrible mortality among the population. One account speaks of riding 30 miles through the Irish midlands without seeing a single living person.

Jdorney 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I think you have done some work on the Irish section of this article? It certainly reads better than it did when I wrote the above comments, especially the observations on mortality rates in Ireland during Cromwell's wars. I am quite happy to accept the points you make, and the mention of Petty is useful (I don't recollect that being mentioned in the previous version?) My own figure was a 'guestimate', projecting backwards from the population just prior to the ninteenth century famine. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but I think we have a duty in these matters to be as precise and as objective as possible. I was taking issue with the contention that Cromwell's wars reduced the population of the island by a third, unsupported, as it was, by an kind of detailed reference.

It was certainly difficult to practice as a Catholic during Cromwell's time, but that is quite different from the statement that the religion was outlawed. I hope you do not feel that I am playing with words; but you cannot discriminate against that which officially does not exist.

Thank you for your comment about editing out nonsense. With reference to Dunbar I did take out the bit about Cromwell's 'lack of experience.' As usual with my editing I always leave an explanation on the talk page, to allow people to trace my thinking and my footsteps. Thankfully, I have not come across much vandalism as such-just some statements of breathtaking stupidity! I would make the concluding proposition in Wittgenstein's Tractatus the fundamental principle of all editing and writing-Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, davon muss mann sweigen (whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent). Rcpaterson 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the the Scottish aspects of the civil war pages. I have studied the Irish aspect of the wars to some extent but used my very limited knowledge of Scottish history to do some small articles about it, where before there were none, but am happy to accept that they need improving.

Re Catholicism, I don't really understand the point you're making here. If it was illegal to practice it, is this not the same as outlawing it? I know that Cromwell's own take on it was that he wasn't in the business of "meddling with men's consience" but would not allow public exercise of Catholicism. I suppose in theory this means that private worship was acceptable to him.

Re the population of Ireland, it grew fairly slowly in the seventeenth century from under a million in 1600 to about 2 million in 1700, no doubt slowed by the the mid century demographic catastrophe (war, famine and plague), to about 5 million by 1800, which is about the same as today in the whole island, then sky rocketed up to 8 million by the time of the famine, when another catastrophe, followed by emmigration cut it drasticly again.

"whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent"

I wholeheartedly agree! This should be wikipedia's motto! Jdorney 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the nearest contemporary reference I can think of is the position of Catholicism in Poland, for example, before the collapse of Communism-it wasn't illegal to be a Catholic, just very difficult to practice as one. Perhaps an even better example-in relation to Ireland anyway-was the position of the Orthodox Church under Stalin-you will not find any Soviet law banning Christianity, but you will find thousands of priests in the Gulags. I have never come across any reference to an English statute law banning Catholicism. There were people who were Catholic, and known to be Catholic, even during the most intense phases of official hostility and popular hysteria. Some, of course, were singled out for special treatment-the hanging of innocent men during the Popish Plot springs to mind. Most, however, got on with things as best they could, usually under some form of state protection, and paying fines for non-attendance at the official church. However, I really do not want to take this too far, and I certainly do not want to cross Irish swords with you. I do appreciate what you are saying-my original point was to challenge the contention that Cromwell actually outlawed Catholicism, which he did not. Rcpaterson 05:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see the distinction you're making now. There was no law saying that all Catholics must convert or die or anything like that, but the public exercise of the religion was banned. Jdorney 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell a redhead as well as a roundhead?

On Red hair it says "red hair was fashionable.... during the rule of redhead Oliver Cromwell." In all the pictures I've seen Cromwell is depicted with brown hair, can anyone verify if he was ginger? AllanHainey 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell and Judaism

I confess I am not an expert on this area of Cromwell's life, but I suspect that the readmission of Jewish people to England had very little to do with his 'absolute insistance on religious freedom'. I have a feeling it had much more to do with the need to promote economic recovery after the disruption of the Civil Wars. He would only have to glance across the North Sea to understand the important commercial influence of the Jewish community in Holland, England's main trading rival. I think this reference should be changed-or removed-but I will leave it until someone can point to evidence that he was motivated by some principle of conscience. Rcpaterson 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Having no response to the above I've now edited this to highlight the economic calculations behind the move. Rcpaterson 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? If we don't have any information on his motives, the article should just say that Cromwell allowed the jews to resettle without going into why. Borisblue 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curse of Cromwell

In some parts of the Gaeltacht (Irish-speaking) areas of Connemara, the insult "Mallacht Cromwell ort," The Curse of Cromwell on you, can still be heard in an altercation.--PeadarMaguidhir 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early years

As it stands, the article has very little on the first 40 years of Cromwell's life save for some references to his early political career, and an assertion that he nearly emigrated (for which there is circumstantial but not strong evidence). Although sources for Cromwell's early life are patchy, there has been a lot of work done recently that has filled in signficant gaps (and drawn interpretation from what gaps are left). His breakdown and conversion in the 1620s are crucial to explaining his personality and political actions later in life. I think the article would benefit from a short section on his early life. I've put together the following and will look to include it subject to any discussion here (it draws heavily on John Morrill's account, which is now the standard). It is probably far too long, but the article as it stands does not do Cromwell's complex personality justice without reference to his formative years. (The section on his attitudes to Parliament could also do with an update, but one thing at a time!).

"Cromwell was born in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. He attended Huntingdon Grammar School, then in April 1616 matriculated at Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, which was then a recently-founded college with a strong Puritan ethos. However, he left in June 1617 without taking a degree, immediately after the death of his father. Early biographers claim he then attended Lincoln’s Inn, but there is no record of him in the Inn’s archives. He is likely to have returned home to Huntingdon, given that his mother widowed and his seven sisters were unmarried and the need to take charge of the family.

The crucial event of this decade was his marriage to Elizabeth Bourchier in August 1620. Her father Sir James Bourchier owned extensive land in Essex and had strong connections with the godly gentry families there. The marriage brought Cromwell Oliver into contact with Oliver St Johns and also with leading members of the London merchant community, and behind them the influence of the earls of Warwick and Holland. Membership of this godly network would prove crucial to Cromwell’s military and political career. At this stage, however, there is little evidence of Cromwell’s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall – an Arminian minister – suggests that before this point Cromwell had yet to be influenced by Independent puritanism. However, there is evidence that Cromwell went through a period of personal crisis during the late 1620s and early 1630s. He sought treatment for valde melancolicus (depression) from a London doctor in 1628. He was also caught up in a fight amongst the gentry of Huntingdon over the use of a bequest by Richard Fishbourne, a member of the Mercers’ Company, as a result of which he was called before the Privy Council in 1630. In 1631 he sold most of his properties in Huntingdon and moved to a farmstead in St Ives.

This was a major step down in society. One of only four letters that survive from before the 1640s hints at the impact it had on his emotional and spiritual state. Written on 13 October 1638 to his 22-year-old cousin Elizabeth, wife of Oliver St John, it is a classic conversion account of how after having been ‘a chief, the chief of sinners’, driven to the depths of despair, he had been called to be among ‘the congregation of the firstborn’. By 1638, we can be fairly sure that Cromwell was a committed Independent, with important family links to leading Independent families in Essex and London. In his own eyes, he had come through a period of crisis through God’s providence. This experience was to prove formative for actions later in his career." Greycap 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot better that the early part of the article as it stands at present. The problem you will find with a lot of these Wikipedia pieces is that a great many of them read as if a thousand tailors have been at work, some considerably more skilful that others. I think this whole article really needs a complete rewrite; but weak as it is it is better now than when I first came across it. My advice would be to edit boldly, then justify your work-if justification is needed-by citation and argument. I believe that the 'Family' section as it stands is best jetisoned altogether. I must confess I am far from being an expert on all aspects of Cromwell's life, particularly on those areas touching on personal belief. I was, however, under the impression-mistaken perhaps-that the Independents as a sect-as opposed to Puritans in general-really only emerge in a fully developed form after the outbreak of the Civil War. It was only after joining the Westminster Assembly that the Scots Presbyterians became aware of the sects as a threat to their own particular style of church reformation. Rcpaterson 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about Independents/Presbyterians is well-made, I think. More widely, I think I will have a go at some kind of rewrite. Greycap 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added in the material on the first 40 years, and have made some changes to "Member of Parliament" and "Military Commander" as the start of some wider additions.

First 40 years: this draws on John Morrill's account in Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, which is at present the definitive text on his early life.

Member of Parliament: I have amended the section on the Short Parliament, which was incorrect. The only evidence we have for a speech is the one on Neile, for which the evidence is that it was unsuccessful. I have also deleted the material on defending the victims of the Fenland drainage - there is not strong evidence that he was a defender of the "common man" on this issue. The title "Lord of the Fens" was originally a Royalist sneer. I have also added in material to stress his relatively lowly position in the early stages of the Long Parliament, and his connections to the godly circle round St John, Warwick, Holland, Bedford and Saye and Sele (for which I have drawn on John Adamson's Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament).

Military commander: I have fleshed out some of the material on early military experience, and slightly revised the section on his military abilities, drawing on Austin Woolrych's summary of his military career. Greycap 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work Greycap. Jdorney 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a start on updating the material on politics of the 1640s and early 1650s, which was lacking slightly. This draws on a variety of sources, some mentioned above, but I have referenced key ones. Not perfect, but a start hopefully. I've shifted the religious beliefs section since I think it makes more sense to cover OC's life chronologically then pick out thematic questions - at some point I will try to go over the religious beliefs section then add something on the political beliefs (such as they were), and update the section on the Protectorate. I am also minded to delete, or at least substantially trim down, the section on family since I don't know how much it adds. Any thoughts welcome. Greycap 09:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Every time I return to this page it looks increasingly healthy. Have a look at some of the earlier versions, if you have not already done so; to describe them as atrocious would be too kind. I have one small point to make which I leave to you to check and amend. The section headed 'Politics 1647-49' implies that discussions were still ongoing with the Scots by the time Cromwell returned to active political life, whereas in fact they had already been concluded. The Scots army left Newcastle before the end of January 1647, by which time the king had been handed over to the Commissioners of Parliament and an armed force under Philip Skippon moved in. Discussions then focused throughout the remainder of the year on what form a political settlement with the king would take. This was a three-cornered contest, the army even making its own approach to Charles in the Heads of the Proposals.

I would certainly agree that the Family section is best jetisoned, as I believe are the sections headed 'Trivia', 'In Popular Culture' and 'Quotations'. Relevant quotations should arise from the text, not isolated Chairman Mao style, so to speak. Also I have never really seen the need for a separate 'Religious Beliefs' section-these should also emerge in the course of the text. It might also be useful to list your sources in the References section, not at all adequte as it stands. Rcpaterson 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-organised the Irish section chronalogically and tried to pare down the commentary and opinion to a single paragraph. Comments welcome. Jdorney 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Rcpaterson 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain your position

Why Stalin should be called dictator, but Cromwell - not?--Nixer 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesuit's Bark

Can you cite your sources for this? I've never come across this story before. Greycap 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled too. There are some references in the 1680s but not this early.Rjensen 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation

This is a lot better than the original "Posthumuous reputation" section but it's rather top-heavy with quotations. I will have a go at distilling this - plus it needs something on Ludlow's memoirs and John Toland, and the contribution that made to a Whiggish image of Cromwell. I will have a go at this - plus must get on with going over the rest of the chronological content post-1653... Greycap 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement of a good reference with a faulty one

A few observations about Greycap's replacement of a reference I made for a quote: my footnote reference

Young, Peter, and Holmes, Richard, The English Civil War, Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2000 edition, ISBN 1 84022 222 0, p107.

was replaced with the incomplete reference

(Letter to Sir William Spring, September 1643)

Greycap explained this in his edit summary: "Removed quotation citation - there are lots of books in which this extract is quoted. If we any secondary source, it should probably be Abbott's source book. But have added original reference instead."

You are welcome to change my citation, but in my opinion you have weakened the reference. And I have to say my impression of the article is that not only are there too few citations but that the article isn't following Wikipedia:Citing Sources coherently. To quote that guideline:

Page numbers: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article."

Correct Harvard referencing (if that's what the replacement was intended to be): "The Harvard referencing system places a partial citation — the author's name and year of publication within parentheses — at the end of the sentence within the text, and a complete citation at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of 'References'."

Editions: "It is crucial that complete references be provided for each distinct edition referred to (or cited) in the article, and that each such in-line citation provide enough information to distinguish between editions."

And from Wikipedia: Reliable Sources:

Secondary sources preferred over primary: "Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material."

Based on the above, you can imagine why I feel you have replaced a good reference and reference style with a worse one. In the first place, your cite doesn't help anyone check the quote. (On the other hand, the quote is at least now referenced, which is a step forward because all quotes should be sourced.) I could have finessed the reference by adding the primary source, which isn't mandatory, but I was trying to be consistent with the article's existing references: otherwise, my reference was rock solid.

I would add that, for consistency, an article, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, should use only one of the three approved referencing styles (HTML, Harvard, and Footnotes; the last I think are the best and most flexible), to be agreed between the article's editors. Greycap's referencing style in this case conforms to none of those three.

Finally, if you think there is a better book than Young and Holmes for military Civil War quotes and primary references, I'd like to read it: the book is in my opinion a tour-de-force of exhaustiveness. In any case, the citing of a primary quote from one reputable book is as good as the citing of the same primary quote from another reputable book. qp10qp 13:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'm still fairly new here and hadn't read the referencing guidelines. My rationale was that the quote is referenced in most biographies of Cromwell and wasn't sure why you'd picked that one - but I see that for the average reader, signposting them towards a relatively easy to find source rather than (say) Abbott or the primary source itself is more helpful. I didn't mean to demean Young and Holmes either (although the quote doesn't just have a military import; it's also important as an insight into OC's faith). So apologies for any offence given and please do revert. Greycap 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's gracious of you, and I appreciate it. No offence taken at all, by the way (I tried to make my point without sounding snotty but probably failed). I'm going to drop a note on your talk page about some general things.

I came here as a reader, not really to edit, but I tend to leave a trail of added references or copyedits wherever I go, which is intended to help, in a tiny way. If something needs referencing, I can only do it from the books I have, but I'm always happy if someone replaces a reference of mine with a better one; that's wikiprocess. One thing various guidelines make clear is that we can only reference from books we have at hand; and so, even though Young and Holmes give a full reference to Carlyle, I cannot, by the guidelines, directly reference Carlyle because I haven't his book available and haven't read it. To accommodate your preference for as primary a reference as possible, I've now included the Carlyle ref within the other one, which is acceptable practice; this now gives readers two shots at checking the quote, which is the point of the whole thing.

[edit] Additions on 1653-8 plus editing of other sections

I have made some further additions to the section on the Protectorate plus done better referencing of previous sections. I have also jettisoned the sections on family life and trivia, on the principle of edit boldly since I am not convinced what they add that isn't in the main sections. I have tried to absorb the section on religion into the main body of the text and have done the same with quotations (key ones in the text, plus link to Wikiquote). At some point I will also try to condense and round out the section on evaluations. As ever comments and changes are very welcome. Greycap 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine work. It's depressingly rare for my watchlist to lead me to a substantial edit by anyone, but this was such a thing and clearly took some time and effort; in my opinion, you have really improved the article. Just adding a few basic references and providing the beginnings of a decent footnote section in itself improves credibility (the FA and GA reviewers don't take any articles seriously until they provide a credible number of citations). qp10qp 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more work on the Evaluation section, adding in contemporary and eighteenth-century assessments, and condensing the material on Gardiner and modern historians (I have tried to boil down the big chunks of quoted text). What it's missing is something on the earlier part of the 20th century, on the link between Cromwell and the rise of fascism and socialism. Something on Hill's interpretation would be useful and I will try to fill this in soon. On a separate note, I'm loathe to remove the reference section because so much work has clearly gone into it, but would an alternative be to link to the extensive bibliography on the Cromwell Association's website? [1] Greycap 09:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On bibliography, The Cromwell Association website should be linked but it does not replace the shorter and useful bibliog we have now (which includes hot links to online sources like Carlyle and Trevor Roper). The Association's annotations are not very useful, as they do not indicate the authro's POV or methods. Rjensen 10:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One possibility is to have a select bibliography and to move the full bibliography to a connected page, using Wikipedia:Summary style. An example of an article where that has been done is Martin Luther, in an attempt to cut the article down. Evaluations and even a summary of the abstract below could be inserted there, too, and more information on the books, if necessary. All direct book references made in the main article would remain viewable on the main page in the footnotes anyway.qp10qp 11:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

let's keep the book list. Lots of people need to write papers on Cromwell-related topics. If they have access to a big library this will help winnow down the titles to a a useable number they can browse through. If they do not have access to a major research library, so they will use our list as a checklist to see what they have available to them locally or through inter-library loan. It also shows the breadth of available studies. Rjensen 11:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed chunk of prose from military studies bibliography

I've never seen a big chunk of prose like this in a booklist before, not even (on Wikipedia) in a footnote. Perhaps there's a good reason for it in the talk page archives, I don't know; if so, by all means put it back in. I'll place it here for the moment, for editors to decide what to do with it:

Abstract: In 1655 Cromwell dispatched the major-generals to the English provinces with the aims of improving security and bringing about a moral reformation. Commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth were appointed to work with them in every county. While a few of these commissioners were career politicians, most were zealous Puritans who welcomed the major-generals with open arms and embraced their work with enthusiasm. They imposed the decimation tax on their royalist neighbors with vigor, frequently expressing disappointment if the government exempted any individual from the exaction. In some counties they also participated eagerly in efforts to remove suspect clergymen from the ministry and to suppress immorality by closing down unlicensed alehouses and rounding up the idle and dissolute. While some of them believed that their work was paying dividends, during the election campaign of August 1656 their enemies united against them and returned to Parliament members who were deeply hostile to them. In January 1657 the rule of the major-generals came to an abrupt end and the local influence of the Puritan commissioners waned. Their activities between November 1655 and September 1656 had, however, reopened the wounds of the 1640's and deepened the nation's antipathy to Puritan rule.

qp10qp 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article abstract and tells users the contents of the article. Rjensen 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I've never seen anything quite like it attached to an encyclopedia article before, though.qp10qp 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family section

This has been put back in - I'm the "vandal" referred to who took it out. My rationale was that it doesn't add much having a big chunk of genealogy right at the beginning, and that it is likely to put off the casual reader who knows little about the subject. Instead I tried to bring out family links throughout the piece. However, I would be interested in views on whether we keep it, and if so, whether this is the right place in the structure of the article for it (eg would it sit better further down?). Greycap 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No speculation is allowed in Wiki, especially when it is unsourced and irrelevant. Let's keep to the facts for an encyclopedia. Rjensen 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

This list might soon start to get a bit unwieldy. I wonder if it is worth merging this section with commemoration to have a more general coverage of how Cromwell has been memorialised or incorporated into artistic, religious, political, musical culture etc. Greycap 06:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

The Bibliography needs to include all the major books on Cromwell, even if they appear in footnotes or the regerences. People use the Bibliography as a research checklist. Rjensen 11:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status is on hold

I would pass this article immediately if not for 3 things:

The red links need to be fixed.
A citation is needed on the last paragraph of "Scottish Campaign".
A more citations are needed on the first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I have removed all the red links. --Banana04131 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Jdorney adding references, I think that means all 3 points have now been picked up. Greycap 07:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...although I've just noticed the latter half of the footnotes are messed up. Is there anyone with more html skills than me who knows how to fix them? Greycap 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. a / was missing in fn 42 Rjensen 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passage

After further review of my points above, I passed this article as a good article. Thank you for all of your corrections. Diez2 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/i/Talk%7EOliver_Cromwell_10ee.html"