h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"for him the primary concern was religion"

No it wasn't, it was land for the British Empire. under him, Catholics were subjected to more oppression than they had ever endured. They (we) were not allowed to own land, speak to a Protestant, carry arms. do other than manual labour, or use the word 'church.'

GodBen

Compare him to the French Catholics persecuting the Hugounets (excuse spelling) or the Spanish and Swedish armies butchering each other and any Germans of the wrong religion they came across around this time then.
This was a period that saw the worst religious wars in European history.

I don't find Cromwell admirable or likeable but to judge him by modern standards is to ignore the age he lived in and to ignore the behaviour of his contemparies when religion was involved.

Hussassan

The operative word there is Catholic. Their religion was more important than their land or ethnicity. Some Catholic gentry converted to keep their land. I'm not denying that by our standards Cromwell was a religious bigot but so was almost everyone else. Most Catholics would only tolerate other catholics. Most Protestants would only tolerate members of their own sect. Cromwell was unusual in that he extended toleration to almost all Protestants, and to Jews.

Just not to ordinary people who he massacred.

In the 1940s there was dozens of evil dicators around the world. Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito (It was really the Japanese generals who were evil, Hirohito was just a figure-head in a way). Does that mean that it was alright for Hitler to massacre 6 million Jews because it was "the style of the time"?

GodBen
there were also dozens of democratic leaders around in the 1930s and 1940s but they were few and far between in the 17th century. As for the massacares at Drogheda and Waterford their extent and Cromwells responsibility for them is disputed, at least according to "Cromwell : An Honourable Enemy", a book by an Irish historian whose name I can't recall.

"I'm not denying that by our standards Cromwell was a religious bigot but so was almost everyone else"

Charles I encouraged tolerance, e.g. allowing Catholics to be army officers

Charles was tolerant of Catholics but highly intolerant of Puritans. Both Charles and Cromwell were more tolerant than was usual for the period but neither of them was tolerant by modern standards.

So, you're saying that if most of the world leaders around the world today became evil military dictators (like Saddam Hussein perhaps) then it would be alright for the leaders of the rest of the world to do the same?

"Some Catholic gentry converted to keep their land"

But Cromwell could just have treated the Catholics the same way as the Jews. By not doing so, he gained a convenient excuse to attack Ireland and expand his empire.

The Jews didn't have foriegn countries like Spain and France they might choose to ally with
There was an element of paranoia in Cromwells attitude to Catholics but it was shared by most Protestants of the time

Happydude

Charles I wasn't that tolerant of Catholics
He offered them toleration when he was losing the Civil War to gain their support, but he also offered to make England Presbyterian to encourage the Scots to invade Englnad

I think you're thinking of his sons, Charles II and James II, who were much more tolerant of Catholics, but since Charles II converted to Catholicism on his deathbed and James II was Catholic thats hardly surprising

GodBen

no I didn't say that
the point I was trying to make and have been trying to make all along is that if you apply modern ideas to 17th century figures they were all brutal, superstitious etc
I can't see any point to that since we're all products of our environment
what can be said is that Cromwell was more tolerant than most people of the period and was scrupulous in following the rules of war as they were recognised by all the nations of the period

But Cromwell wasn't more toplerent than most. (Sorry for the short post, but I have other more interesting threads to post on.)

GodBen
there I suspect we will just have to disagree

Yes, but according to a new radical theory everyone in the world is wrong about everything. Except for me. If I was wrong then it would creat a paradox you see, so according to this theory it doesn't matter if you dissagree with me, you're wrong anyway.

I usually am anyway so that supports the theory i suppose

I know I'm replying to something posted a couple of years ago, but I've only just found it. Having just spent a year studying Cromwell at uni, and as a member of the Cromwell Association, I feel duty bound to offer some sort of defence.

Cromwell opposed the War against the Dutch, which had been a policy of the Rump Parliament: "I do not like the war... I will do everything in my power to bring about peace" he said. Indeed, it was entirely contrary to his hope of a united Protestant Europe. The War against Spain was a defence against the greatest threat to the fledgeling Republic, and funded by Parliamentary approval.

Cromwell's campaign in Ireland, and the atrocities that were commmitted there, have been hugely exagerrated. The massacre at Drogheda shortened the War considerably; Cromwell besieged 28 towns and fortresses; only a few resisted, and there were massacres at only two: Dorgheda and Wexford. Drogheda was Cromwell's Hiroshima, his Dresden. Wexford was an accident - Cromwell was in the process of discussing terms when one of his subordinates laucnhed an assault without orders, and the massacres began after the Parliamentarian troops discovered evidence of Catholic atrocieties. The later clearances under the so-called 'Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland' probably had nothing to do with him - he was out of favour with the English Government at the time - and he later sent his son Henry to try to mitigate the effects.

The mutilation of James Naylor occurred in spite of, not because of, Cromwell, who wrote to Parliament in defence of the liberty of the people, and Naylor in particular, but was ingnored. He was reduced to having to simply do his best to alleviate Naylor's suffering by providing a pension, food whilst he was in jail and so on.

Ruling without Parliament was certainly no greater power than a King - most monarchs had done it frequently since Parliament first met. The Major-Generals lasted in power no more than a few months, and had little impact. They were both a security measure and part of a programme of social reform.

Others have accused Cromwell of anti-Catholicism, but he was more tolerant than most. He attacked the Irish Catholic clergy because he (rightly) saw them as war mongers; the laity he felt should be allowed to practice their religion, with the exception of the Mass (which had been illegal since the time of Elizabeth I). Under the Protectorate, so the French ambassador reported the Cardinal Mazarin, Catholic clergy in England could walk the streets in safety, and Catholics were free to attend Mass in the embassy chapels.

Hi, Anglo-Norman... do you mind if I use some of this stuff in the Entry? You'll get credit for it obviously.

Mr Dreadful,

Sorry for the delay, just got back from holiday.

No - go ahead!

Ta, admittedly I'd used it already but your post was the only decently-written thing I'd seen that didn't just say "Drogheda was committed by an evil madman who ordered his men to rape women, kick puppies and make pictures crooked."