This list misses the actual reason various historians have sought to rehabilitate Cromwell or at least paint him as a complex figure: he was a symbol of middle class rebellion against arbitrary monarchical power and the emergence of Parliament as the centre of British politics, having risen from relatively humble origins to play a leading role in the military defeat of and political decision to execute a monarch seen as exceeding his powers over Parliament.

Of course the great irony is that he then arbitrarily dismissed Parliament himself (though the record doesn't suggest this was his actual goal) and was so unpopular in power that the restoration of the previous king's son to the throne on his death was inevitable. He certainly wasn't the poster boy for the development of British democracy, but he influenced its development massively - positively and negatively.

There is a decent chance that Parliament would have overthrown and executed Charles I without his military skill or enthusiasm for regicide (just like similar massacres in Ireland would likely have taken place without his -disputed- involvement and apologia) as he wasn't even a significant figure at the beginning of the conflict, but those whose name and public statements becomes most known always get the credit and the blame.

I think you have to start citing your sources. My sources suggest that Cromwell was hugely popular and pretty much not allowed to leave his post, which is why the restoration did not happen until after his death. He was even pushed to accept the crown himself - that's as popular as one could get. Also he was not into regicide, and King Charles I was only axed because he stubbornly refused to pare down his ambition from absolute monarchy to anything less, and with full agreement of the Parliament.

Sources: The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.

The Humble Petition was a small number of MPs offering him the Crown as a carrot to try to persuade him to tone down the military rule of his generals in the provinces and give power back to Parliament. Cromwell rejected it after some deliberation, not least because he believed some of his military allies would turn on him if he did. He filled a power vacuum, but the support he got from the military was conditional, and the Parliaments he convened didn't back his agendas despite his allies designing the franchises and vetting the candidates. Even Cromwell himself didn't think he was popular as opposed to powerful, famously remarking of a cheering crowd that "they would just as noisy if they were going to see me hanged". He stayed in power due to skill at bridging factions who hated each other and commanding armies, but failed to build a legacy or unite people behind a cause which meant the Restoration happened without significant opposition (and the public got to cheer the hanging of his exhumed corpse). After that, not not many words were written in his favour until Carlyle decided to make him a hero of history in the 19th century. In the absence of a Lord Protector, we might have seen an attempt at an English Republic instead, and it is conceivable it could have lasted longer.

It is true that regicide was not Parliament's original intent and was not pursued until after the Second Civil War. But Cromwell was prominent in making it happen when it did.

It's been over a decade since I studied Cromwell so you'll forgive me for not listing every source I read on the subject, but suffice to say it's more than one podcast :)

Nothing is what it seems, eh?

Thanks!

A big reason why the Roundheads wanted to make Cromwell king was to limit his power. His status as Lord Protector was not King, and therefore had none of the constraints on power that the kingdom had evolved over the centuries.

He wasn't widely popular outside the parliamentarians, who were the ones in power. The "godly", who made up the majority of the Roundheads were reviled by a substantial portion of the British. Cromwell held the Commonwealth together, that's for sure, but the cohesion amongst the Roundheads dried up once he died.

Source: The English and their History by Robert Tombs

"Pushing for religious toleration" in this case would be sort like talking about the Taliban as religiously tolerant because they pushed for toleration of Wahhabism.

(And the choice of comparison here is not carelessly chosen: like the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan for idolatry by the Taliban, Cromwell presided over the destruction of numerous medieval monuments/artwork for the same reason.)

I'm not an expert, but in Antonia Fraser's biography, Cromwell comes across as a remarkably tolerant person for his time. He was anti-Catholic, but this is in the context of 150 years of religious conflict including, within living memory, an attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. And yet he negotiated with the Pope to secure freedom of private worship for Catholics in exchange for the Pope not preaching rebellion to English subjects. Of the many bigots on his side, he once said "Nothing will satisfy them unless they can put their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there." He spoke for toleration: "I had rather that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God's children should be persecuted." He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.) I've already mentioned his protection of the Jews.

It's important not to confuse Cromwell with "the Puritans" in general, still less some of the extremists in the army. He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.

> He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.)

It's clear that it was different, not that it was wider. Cromwell was generally interested in toleration of various 'non-conformist' groups, but mostly Calvinist ones (presumably these were the ones he counted as "God's children"; 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away since there weren't any significant number of Muslims in Britain at the time). Even Quakers didn't end up particularly well-protected by the Protectorate. (James II, Charles I's younger son, did much more for the Quakers.)

The toleration of Jews was plausibly driven in part by Puritan millennarist beliefs about the role of the Jews in the end-times, but there was a more general trend towards more positive views of Jews throughout the 17th and into the 18th-centuries which doesn't seem specific to Cromwell or the Puritans.

> He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.

He ended up with far more power (both direct and indirect) than the kings preceding or following him.

> 'Mahometanism' is a pretty easy throw-away

hm think again, the English people traded, travelled and warred across the known World. The ideas and social constructs of far-away others would certainly be a topic amongst the educated. A public position of tolerance may have been something substantial. Next, weigh that against a forceful, vocal and unapologetic Christian branch that stood for conversion of un-saved souls through the bounty of our Lord JC amen. So, no, not so easy to throw out IHMO.

I don't dispute any of what you say; in fact, I think perhaps even not just a topic for the 'educated' but also in more popular venues.

But the context here was Cromwell talking about (hypothetically) preferring to allow 'Mahometanism' to be practised in England, not just as an idea or social construct of far-away others.

Since there wasn't any great likelihood that any legal or social changes were going to actually cause 'Mahometanism' to suddenly flourish in England, it is indeed a pretty easy throw-away remark.

> * Pushing for religious toleration.

Those who want to learn more about Cromwell's "push for religious toleration" might want to start by picking up God's Executioner by Micheal O Siochru. I won't spoil it. ahem

Tell us more. I've been quoting from my reading, but I am sure it's one-sided. Your perspective would be a valuable complement.

The choice is not Cromwell or liberal democracy. The choice is Cromwell or the Spanish Inquisition with Ireland as gateway to England.

> According to modern estimates, around 150,000 were prosecuted for various offenses during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed (~2.7% of all cases).

> Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent

> [Cromwellian conquest Irish casualties] Unknown; 15,000–20,000 battlefield casualties, over 200,000–600,000 civilian casualties (from war-related violence, famine or disease)[1] ~50,000 deported as indentured labourers[2][3]

> Wexford was the scene of another infamous atrocity: the Sack of Wexford, when Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while negotiations for its surrender were ongoing, and sacked it, killing about 2,000 soldiers and 1,500 townspeople and burning much of the town

Cromwell was, at the low end, signficantly worse than the Spanish Inquisition at an absolute level, and given the relative populations of Ireland and Spain in those days, looks even worse in a proportional level.

And don't forget, this is comparing 5 years of cromwell to 300 of the inquisition.

I think you missed your citations.

Another point is that GP's claim "it was Cromwell or the inquisition" is a bit overblown. It was Cromwell or a relatively High Church monarchy, and a lot of taxation without representation. I don't think there's a credible argument that Charles I would have reintroduced Catholicism, still less the Inquisition.

Actually copied from Wikipedia, hence the left in citation markers, but Wikipedia's citations are:

1: Mícheál Ó Siochrú/RTÉ ONE, Cromwell in Ireland Part 2. Broadcast 16 September 2008.

2: O'Callaghan, Sean (2000). To Hell or Barbados. Brandon. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-86322-272-6.

3: Higman, B. W. (1997). Knight, Franklin W. (ed.). General History of the Caribbean: The slave societies of the Caribbean. 3 (illustrated ed.). UNESCO. pp. 107, 108]. ISBN 978-0-333-65605-1.

The 15-80% figure sources are:

15–25% Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, p112

50%: The History and Social Influence of the Potato, Redcliffe N. Salaman, Edited by JG Hawkes, 9780521316231, Cambridge University Press How many died during Cromwell’s campaign?

83%: The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland by John Patrick Prendergast

I would suspect perhaps that the 83% figure is probably going so far as to blame Cromwell for The Great Famine of 1845, and definitely his "to hell or to Connacht" campaign of dispossessing native Irish landowners was a contributing factor in the economic structure that led to it, but I think 200 years apart is enough to not directly attribute that as "deaths to Cromwell's invasion".

> out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed (~2.7% of all cases)

ISTR that the percentage who died in prison awaiting trial was was rather higher, no?

From the figures in my previous post, if all 150k people prosecuted by the Spanish Inquisition died in prison or were executed, then the lower bound estimate death toll of 5 years of Cromwell would still be 50% higher than 300 years of the inquisition.

It's absolutely insane that four hundred years later people are still repeating anti-Catholic propaganda from an ancient war.

I personally find this entire post and discussion thread reprehensible.

The Spanish had already been defeated nearly half a century earlier and the Royal Navy supreme. This is completely wrong and the Civil War didn’t start over religion it was over ship money (the King not consenting parliament to raise taxes.)

And what was the king raising money for? Wars waged to enforce high church upon Scotland, while allowing with Spain against the Dutch.

> Pushing for religious toleration.

Er, no, rather the opposite.

> Fighting the Dutch

I don't see why this is in the positive column; English political dysfunctionality was so bad that thirty years after Cromwell's death, the English establishment invited the Dutch to invade, welcomed them, and had them fight the Irish (again). William of Orange is still celebrated by anti-Catholic groups.

That's neat. Cromwell's legacy is his treatment of the Irish the rest of his legacy can be safely disregarded.

"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.[11] The Parliamentarians also transported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.[2]"

We don't go but, "oh Hitler painted pictures too".

Edit: Swap "painted pictures" for "built roads", or "helped progress rocket technology", my point is unchanged and in fact strengthened.

I'm not sure the things listed are the same as 'painting pictures'. I'm not even saying you're wrong about Cromwell, but at least take the points fairly.

* The first two are simply a rotation. Jews were back in favour, and Catholics were out.

* The third was something that happened in Cromwell's reign, but there's no evidence he contributed positively or negatively, and the fact that the monarchy followed up by supporting it and actually chartering the royal society seems to indicate that it had little connection to what the actual regime in power was.

* Primary education good, sure.

* So I was not familiar with the anglo-dutch war so I read the wikipedia article. This appears to be a trade dispute because the English wanted to look the dutch out of shipping to England that was escalated to war by the English after the Dutch refused their ultimatum? This is being offered as a "good" act?

So overall, I don't think funding primary education is an achievement that even begins to counterbalance his actions, sorry.

Besides, to go back to the example of Hitler (and no, this is not Godwin's law, Hitler is the most appropriate comparison to Cromwell in Irish history), Hitler was _great_ for technology. The germans started modern rocketry which led to our modern satelite communications, the allies invented computing, both sides made big leaps in industrial production.

I don't think anyone sensible thinks the above should be considered in a judgement on Hitler's actions. Neither do I think education/scientific funding should excuse Cromwell's.

"... a rotation. Jews were back in favour" is a weird way to parse the end of a 400 year period during which Jews weren't even allowed in the country.

About his patronage for science: he was more interested in training up preachers, but he wouldn't have seen these as opposed. He planned to set up colleges in the North; Hartlib (key figure in the Invisible College) was on the committee for Durham. These plans were ended by the Restoration.

You're very casual about primary education! It wasn't seen as an obviously good thing at the time - which is why it was reversed. Even in the 19th century, many people still argued that you shouldn't over-educate the working masses. Early literacy may have been a crucial step towards the take-off into economic growth.

There's a lot of people making the comparison with Hitler. I suggest that even the harshest interpretation of the Irish campaign does not bear comparison with the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. English colonization predates Cromwell by at least a century. Ethnic cleansing was planned and carried out in several areas of Ireland. This is, obviously, very bad indeed! But it is not the same as Zyklon gas. The plan had also been laid down before Cromwell became Protector. When he intervened personally, it was usually to urge mercy for specific individuals. This is not the same as "no Hitler, no Holocaust".

Lastly, you're assuming that I only wanted to mention "good stuff". I just wanted a slightly broader and calmer debate. I don't know the historical effects of defeating Spain or Holland.

Hitler is absolutely the correct comparison. The lowest estimate for Cromwell's death toll in Ireland (sourced in in my other reply to you) is 15%.

In comparison, Hitler in Poland is 16%. [1]

Another factor that makes it an appropriate comparison: Like Hitler dispossessed Poles to give their land to Germans, Cromwell dispossessed Irish Catholics to give their land to English and Scottish Protestants.

[1]: Materski, Wojciech; Szarota, Tomasz (2009). "Przedmowa" [Preface]. Polska 1939–1945. Straty Osobowe i Ofiary Represji pod Dwiema Okupacjami [Human Losses and Victims of Repressions under Two Occupations] (in Polish). Warsaw: IPN. ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6. Archived from the original on 23 March 2012. Retrieved 27 October 2014.

Hitler is far from unique in pushing one ethnic group out. Throughout human history that has, sadly, been common.

Percentages are important, but Hitler was responsible for the death of millions. Absolute numbers matter too.

I looked more into the history. (Your cite doesn't give 600,000 for the figure killed by Cromwell, but for the whole civil war. In fact, the author ends "One wonders how many of the c. 600,000 victims died during Cromwell's campaign." The cite there is to Michael St John Parker, which I can't find.) I'm still hunting for reliable estimates of the population decline. Houston and Houston "Population history" isn't available online. The writers in Ohlmeyer (cited below) don't seem to put up a headline figure. William Petty's estimates aren't modern enough to be useful, although Petty was a serious writer. Note two points. First, population decline isn't the same as causing deaths, especially in a young population. Iraq after 1990 saw "missing population" of up to a million due to sanctions, but this is probably not because a million people were directly killed. You also have to account for declining birth rates and emigration. For instance, marriages fell sharply at the start of the civil war period. Other deaths were due to famine and starvation. Again, these are appalling, buut they are not the same as murder in death camps.

More importantly, these are figures for the entire 1641-1661 conflict. But Cromwell was only there relatively briefly. He didn't start the conflict, nor finish it. He became a shorthand for the whole English policy of the period. That is not necessarily fair to him.

None of this makes Cromwell innocent. (Still less does it make the English leadership as a whole innocent.) But the Hitler comparison are still overblown:

* Cromwell took part in a brutal colonial civil war, which devastated the Irish economy and led to famine and disease. He was responsible for massacres at Wexford and Drogheda.

* Hitler committed deliberate, systematic genocide against at least two ethnic groups, setting up scientific-industrial systems of mass murder which killed millions.

These are not the same.

Things I read while learning more about this:

https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/195/1/55/1523...

Rai, M., 1993. Columbus in Ireland. Race & Class, 34(4), pp.25-34.

Ohlmeyer, J.H. ed., 2002. Ireland from independence to occupation, 1641-1660. Cambridge University Press.

Update. The most serious, detailed estimates I could find are:

Lenihan, P., 1997. War and population, 1649–52. Irish Economic and Social History, 24(1), pp.1-21, available at

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1292941669/fulltextPDF/A...

These give an estimate of population decline of 15-20%, mostly due to famine and plague (which the war was instrumental in spreading).

There's no broader debate to be had, you're simply being an apologist for someone who cannot be redeemed. At every chance at multiple places in this thread you try to play down his actions, and at every point you're offered decent explanations as to why he's worse -- I'm starting to consider you a bigot lightly couched in academic reading.

I'm sorry you think so! You would make your argument stronger if you addressed some of my specific points. I'm sure my reading is pretty light (full disclosure: it consists of the Fraser biography, plus the King's War, King's Peace and Trial of Charles I trilogy), so if you have more or different sources, they might add some balance.

I would like to apologize to you for calling you a potential bigot, and though I personally feel that other places in the thread have done a good job speaking to the counterpoints about just how awful I believe Cromwell to be, after I collect myself and read through everything again I'll try to offer more than just emotionally driven attacks. I flew off the handle because this is obviously a personal issue to me for various reasons, where as for you this is most likely of detached academic interest. Not justification, just explanation.

No worries. I've been called worse.

Hitler was not good, much less great, for technology. Germany was the scientific center of the world before the Nazis took power, so their successes are mostly attributable to inertia. The Nazis destroyed this on their own with the 1933 Nuremberg laws.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2018092...

You could argue that his legacy is still alive and kicking, interfaced in Northern Ireland.

Also:

* Hitler fixed the roads

* Communist Russia got the first Satellite into space