Cromwell or How to make yourself unpopular in Ireland

[flamingpig0]

How to make yourself unpopular in Ireland

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/26/irish-amateur-historian-on-lonely-mission-to-save-bogeyman-cromwell-from-genocide-charges


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/31/has-history-got-it-wrong-about-oliver-cromwells-persecution-of-catholics

[pierre the shy]

Interesting topic Flamingpig.

If you think the history of the English/Welsh or even Scots side of the War of the Three Kingdoms is complex then wait till you get to the Irish history.....it's absolutely mind boggling!

We are about done with our dealings with recreating Montrose's campaign in minature and are heading over the Irish Sea to cover some of the Irish battles from 1641 - 50, though the storm of Drogdeha in 1649 is not specifically one of them.

Has history recorded Cromwell's actions there incorrectly? not sure as I have not read the new book. But trying to decide who are the "good guys" in the murky world of civil war politics can be a lottery and also depends on ones own point of view I guess.

The events discribed might have occurred in the mid 17th Century but its amazing that broadly similar situations continue to occur around the world in 2022.


     

[Gwydion]

I read Tom Reilly's 'Cromwell An Honourable Enemy in 1999 and was pleasantly surprised by his even handed approach to the history.

I was also unsurprised at the discontent from elements of Irish society, including most vociferously the Republican movement in the North. It's difficult to unpick three centuries of propaganda. Look at the discontent at confronting elements of British history where there are differing standards applied now.

Definitely worth a read with as open a mind as you can muster.

As for 'good guys', if wargaming helps show anything it is surely that there are seldom unequivocally good and bad guys in history.

[flamingpig0]

I would tend to go with his actions as being not unusual for the period.

[John Cook]

I was also unsurprised at the discontent from elements of Irish society, including most vociferously the Republican movement in the North. It's difficult to unpick three centuries of propaganda.

Best not to go there    'History' in NI is a subject all its own, on both sides of the political/religious divide.  I can't get exited about Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland, any more than I can about the Atlantic Ocean slave trade.  It all happened far too long ago but trust the Guardian to sieze on it.  Somebody will be wanting apologies, followed by compensation, before you know it, or am I just being over-cynical?   

[flamingpig0]

Best not to go there    'History' in NI is a subject all its own, on both sides of the political/religious divide.  I can't get exited about Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland, any more than I can about the Atlantic Ocean slave trade.  It all happened far too long ago but trust the Guardian to sieze on it.  Somebody will be wanting apologies, followed by compensation, before you know it, or am I just being over-cynical?   

You are being over cynical but don't ever change

[Nirnman]

Cromwell has definitely been made a bogeyman for the republican Irishthey forget that in that period when a city/fortress was besieged and once a breach/breaches were made in the fortifications that were practicable for assault the defenders were given the opportunity to surrender. Failing to do so at that point meant that the garrison could expect No Quarter to be given. This was the case at Droghedathe Royalist Garrison troops(mostly English by the way) were killed either in the assault or after capture as was customary, having rejected the demand for surrender any native Irish civilian casualties who died were either carrying arms or fought the assaulting troops who as may be imagined were angry that they had to take casualties from among their comrades by having to assault the town.

[hammurabi70]

I am always suspicious of anything with Ireland and Crowell in the same sentence; too many axes being ground.  As stated: in keeping with the era's code of war yet his actions are repeatedly attacked, despite the fact that the Geneva Convention was far in the future; they did things differently then.  I am always unsurprised by the general ignorance of the public mind: Cromwell's tolerance and readmission of the Jews to Britain has never been a secret yet the public perception remains negative with periodic queries about his statue standing outside the House of Commons.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Well, after the his weekend and his flank charge on Cornish foot, ue won't be popular there either
Blog reports to follow

[mmcv]

Cromwell does seem to get blamed for a lot of the actions of his contemporaries. It seems like a lot of the time he was trying to keep balance and peace between competing elements in power, between politicians and the army, rather than imposing his will as an unquestioned dictator. I think there is a tendancy to being blinkered to Cromwell in Ireland, but he doesn't seem to be beyond the pale for his contemporaries, particularly on the continent. At least early on he didn't have any particular anti Irish agenda, being more concerned with the royalists in power there. Famine and plague did a lot of the damage as well as the war progressed. But any attempts to view historical people and actions through modern historical lenses and their political agendas will always cause issues, especially one that still is seen as having threads through to present day.

Ireland has a long history of suffering under English rule, so can understand how Cromwell has become the symbol of that, though the historical character seems considerably more nuanced and complicated than the "Christmas cancelling*, genocidal maniac" he's since been branded, perhaps unfairly, as. He often comes across as more tolerant and fair than people think, but becomes pushed to more extremes by those who propelled him into power. 

He also suffers from the royalist propaganda against him after they came back into power. I do wonder if the recent attempts to rehabilitate his image coincides with the waning popularity of the monarchy...

*He didn't cancel Christmas