Oliver Cromwell: Son Of A Bitch

Cú Giobach · 11-08-2012 12:37PM

mathepac wrote: »

The term Brit is racist?

Sometimes possibly, with the addition of a certain cardinal point.

Pat X · 11-08-2012 12:45PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Will never forgive him what he did to the Abbeys, Glastonbury Abbey comes to mind :mad:

LordSutch wrote: »

But is the history of Cromwell properly taught here???

Not in your case, as you seem to be confusing him with Henry VIII.

flyswatter · 11-08-2012 01:25PM

He was voted in the top 10 Brits of all time by the BBC 10 years ago.

mathepac · 11-08-2012 01:27PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

.... It is in the mother's milk of English speakers - unlike, say, the far more recent 30,000 killed in the Mau Mau rebellion. Far more people. Far more recent. Far more forgotten...

Ah yes the Mau Mau terrorist uprising that was in fact ethnic cleansing to clear valuable land - the people had no value to the British Army and fifth columnists in the pay of capitalists.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

.... So, too with Cromwell. He did in fact have a plan for the ethnic cleansing in Ireland, and he did in fact try and implement it. Had it worked we would be as numerous in Ireland as the Native Americans in Chicago. Why forget? English speaking hegememony.

He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

golden lane · 11-08-2012 01:31PM

mathepac wrote: »

Ah yes the Mau Mau terrorist uprising that was in fact ethnic cleansing to clear valuable land - the people had no value to the British Army and fifth columnists in the pay of capitalists.
He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

ethnic cleansing of land goes on to this very day......cromwell was a man of his time....not a nice one though.......

Galwayguy35 · 11-08-2012 01:38PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

In fairness to him, he was right about the Catholic church but yeah...some f**ker. It's amazing that he's still so hated by the Irish of today. Seems like the rest of the world has let it go but we're rightly not forgetting what he did..the prick

Ah yeah your right, sure what difference that he murdered practically every man woman and child in two towns.

dirtyden · 11-08-2012 01:41PM

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I'd question whether history of anything is taught properly in Ireland. A while back my friend's 10 year old son was chatting to me about his day in school here in Waterford. He told me that they were learning history. The teacher was reading and encouraged the pupils that every time she mentioned the word "English" that they should boo.

His actions in Ireland were quite similar to the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia-Herzogoivna by the Serbians. Very similar tactics of siege and then of slaughtering all males capable of bearing arms. Followed by theft of property and resettlement with protestant land owners. His genocidal actions in Ireland appear to have been brushed over by english historians and dare I say it even by some Irlsh historians. His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

But apart from that he was a great lad.

golden lane · 11-08-2012 01:45PM

dirtyden wrote: »

His actions in Ireland were quite similar to the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnia-Herzogoivna by the Serbians. Very similar tactics of siege and then of slaughtering all males capable of bearing arms. Followed by theft of property and resettlement with protestant land owners. His genocidal actions in Ireland appear to have been brushed over by english historians and dare I say it even by some Irlsh historians. His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

But apart from that he was a great lad.

a hero........just as hitler is a hero to many people....

Wibbs · 11-08-2012 02:06PM

dirtyden wrote: »

His attitude towards irish catholics was genocidal.

The Catholic part is important. For him it was far less an ethnic crusade than a batshít religious one. I suspect in a parallel universe somewhere where most Irish changed to the new faith, Cromwell is a tiny footnote in history

mathepac wrote: »

He had already road-tested his genocide in Scotland to get rid of the Scots and to allow for English expansion northwards.

Scotland has had it's fair share of that shít. The highland clearances later on in the 18th and 19th centuries were unreal. A genocide by any other name by forced expulsion of the locals. A time in history you rarely hear talked about in UK media. Not a lot about it in Horrible Histories...

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah yeah your right, sure what difference that he murdered practically every man woman and child in two towns.

Indeed, however he didn't in other towns. It's not so black and white. He didn't order the destruction of Wexford, his men kicked off when he was in negotiations at the time. Of course at the same time he didn't stop his men either. In Clonmel a year after Drogheda, he let the townspeople alone, even though his new model army had suffered the single biggest loss of troops in a single day in it's history. Carlow and New Ross surrendered pretty much straight away and the townspeople were left alone. Kilkenny after a fight brokered a surrender and no massacres took place. The besieged of Limerick held out, but eventually surrendered to Cromwell and the locals were left alone, though many had died of hunger and a plague during the seige. So in fact in the majority of sieges Cromwell didn't stand command over massacres.

Duggys Housemate · 11-08-2012 02:14PM

The Clonmel pardons are a bit of a side-show then. I come from Clonmel, originally, before moving to England, and then back to Dublin in my childhood. My father's family was always there, as far as any geneology I know. Therefore, its possible my existence is owed, in part, to Cromwell abiding by the terms of surrender when he took over after the siege. If he had put all the town's males to the sword I assume that that would have had a good statistical chance of eliminating an ancestor of mine. (I don't know, possibly my ancestors were later comers to the town, but it's likely I have more than one ancestor in the town at the time on the patrilineal side.)

However, I use Cromwell to mean: Cromwell as General and Lord Protector.

The sieges in Irish towns and the massacres in some of them were either normal, or disproportionate for the age. It depends on the sources, and their bias. That's Cromwell as General. The Cromwellian plantations, were disproportionate in attempt at ethnic cleansing, by any standards. That's Cromwell as ruler.

Nodin · 11-08-2012 02:30PM

LordSutch wrote: »

But is the history of Cromwell properly taught here???

Given your last post on the subject, I'd have to say "no".

gutenberg · 11-08-2012 02:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Apologies G. Brainfart. They had the power but rarely used it. One was far less likely to be executed in front of an Inquisition court than in front of a Protestant court(if it even got that far) or a secular court at the time. The Roman Inquisition stats show less than 2% of cases ended in death. In a secular court in England and elsewhere at the time you could be hanged for stealing a side of lamb and few Protestant "courts" were not show trials whipped up on ignorant religious frenzy with a verdict and sentence decided well in advance.

The image of thousands being tortured for confessions by the Inquisition is also highly spurious. Torture was only allowed in certain specific heresy cases so was quite rare and could only be applied the once and if the person recanted a confession gained under torture that confession was considered null and void(there are a few places in the world today where that's not the case). They had far more rules and regulations in it's application than the secular courts. The secular courts could hand down torture as a punishment, which was considered beyond the Pale by the inquisition. Even the images of the Auto de fe procedure are bogus.

Oh sure the inquisitions had their batshít crazy evil moments(particularly regarding Jews), but the vast majority of the images we associate with the inquisitions in Europe are tall tale invention and propaganda to raise the ire of their readers by hard liner Protestant commentators.

I know, I did my history dissertation on the punishments of the Italian inquisition. And you're right re: the use of torture, its application was highly regulated and permission had to be applied for from the central tribunal in Rome. I agree that the inquisition was in many ways more lenient than the secular courts, so no need to have a go at me

But to say they didn't execute people is incorrect, they did (or rather, the secular authorities did, on their 'recommendation').

And I don't know where you're getting the idea of 'Protestant courts' from. Church courts dealt with issues like marriage, swearing, etc primarily, and were meant to try and enforce a more moral standard of life. Any serious capital or criminal offence was dealt with by a secular court rather than a church court, who didn't have jurisdiction in those kinds of crimes.

Wibbs · 11-08-2012 03:09PM

gutenberg wrote: »

I agree that the inquisition was in many ways more lenient than the secular courts, so no need to have a go at me

I'm confused myself G as I most certainly didn't have a go at you.

But to say they didn't execute people is incorrect, they did (or rather, the secular authorities did, on their 'recommendation').

Hence I apologised said I had a bit of a brainfart and expanded on the subject. In any event their execution rates were very low.

And I don't know where you're getting the idea of 'Protestant courts' from. Church courts dealt with issues like marriage, swearing, etc primarily, and were meant to try and enforce a more moral standard of life. Any serious capital or criminal offence was dealt with by a secular court rather than a church court, who didn't have jurisdiction in those kinds of crimes.

I was referring to the kangaroo type religious courts that were popular during the witchhunt period in the UK and elsewhere. Protestants killed far more supposed witches than Catholics or their Inquisition ever did. Their ratio of witchcraft trials to executions was also much higher. Near 50/50 chance of being hanged or burnt at the stake, compared to 1 in 10 chance. They even exported said window licking daftness to their colonies in the New World. Salem was but the near end point of a long period of religious fundy daftness.

Basically I was just going against one of the earlier posts that suggested we may have been better off as Protestants and that by comparison they were a great bunch o lads. A touch of the recent anti Catholic mindset common in Ireland. For good reasons too, but IMHO a lot of it is also down to exposure to more Protestant biased history in our media.

LordSutch · 11-08-2012 03:27PM

Pat X wrote: »

Not in your case, as you seem to be confusing him with Henry VIII.

Thanks, a freudian slip by me if ever there was

Duggys Housemate · 11-08-2012 03:27PM

In terms of secular capital punishments. In 1882 were 220 capital punishments on the books, up from 50 in 1668 - the bloody code.

It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than a hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death

Benefit of clergy, which we mentioned before on similar threads was the right of clergy originally to be tried in ecclesiastical courts. Then that right came to all literate men, then to everybody for certain crimes, including manslaughter for a while - which is what got Ben Johnson off.

These courts were much more lenient. Which kinda puts the evil Church courts in proportion. It is also, of course, an ideology of the Enlightenment which is bringing in these capital offences. It is well into the Enlightenment, and it is the bourgeois who are making crimes against property capital offences.

karma_ · 11-08-2012 03:33PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Could I suggest that people who are interested in a more rounded view than "He was just an Irish hating, English bastard",take up the task of reading this book:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137552.Cromwellhttp:

By a famous Irishwoman.

It's a stretch to call her Irish in fairness.

ejmaztec · 11-08-2012 03:37PM

Me_Grapes wrote: »

Just looking at the 'people who should be assassinited' thread......and not one person has mentioned auld Ollie. Sure, even Daniel O'Donnell got an assassination wish for god sake.

Does anyone else not think he gets an easy ride in the histroy books? For me he's right up there in the asshole stakes with Hitler, Mussoloni, Stalin, Pol Pot and Ryan Turbity.

The man wished the elimination..... and even worse wished emigration to Connaught for all Irish people.

Yet the man is given an almost hero status in Britian, and his desire for the murder of all Irish men, women and childern is brushed under the carpet when teaching the kids in British schools about the bollix.

All in all, I think the man is a bit of a granny fanny.

Agree?

Hero status? That's bullsh1t, they liked him so much, that when he was dead they decided to kill him again.

kincsem · 11-08-2012 03:38PM

marketty wrote: »

I could be wrong on this but I'm fairly sure he's already dead

On 30 January 1661, (symbolically the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I), Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of Robert Blake, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. (The body of Cromwell's daughter was allowed to remain buried in the Abbey.) His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. His disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

Not universally popular, it seems.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · 11-08-2012 03:46PM

1:30

Duggys Housemate · 11-08-2012 03:46PM

Hes got a statue outside Westminister.

LordSutch · 11-08-2012 03:47PM

Who, Morrissey or Cromwell?

Duggys Housemate · 11-08-2012 03:49PM

Cromwell, all known Morrissey statues are in his own living room.

karma_ · 11-08-2012 03:54PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Who, Morrissey or Cromwell?

Morrissey deserves a statue, cromwell doesn't.

gutenberg · 11-08-2012 03:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm confused myself G as I most certainly didn't have a go at you. Hence I apologised said I had a bit of a brainfart and expanded on the subject. In any event their execution rates were very low.

I was referring to the kangaroo type religious courts that were popular during the witchhunt period in the UK and elsewhere. Protestants killed far more supposed witches than Catholics or their Inquisition ever did. Their ratio of witchcraft trials to executions was also much higher. Near 50/50 chance of being hanged or burnt at the stake, compared to 1 in 10 chance. They even exported said window licking daftness to their colonies in the New World. Salem was but the near end point of a long period of religious fundy daftness.

Basically I was just going against one of the earlier posts that suggested we may have been better off as Protestants and that by comparison they were a great bunch o lads. A touch of the recent anti Catholic mindset common in Ireland. For good reasons too, but IMHO a lot of it is also down to exposure to more Protestant biased history in our media.

Ah ok, apologies: I though you had called me a brainfart

:o

I agree you about witchcraft in that you were far more likely to die in such a scenario than before an inquisition, although in England certainly the number of witchcraft cases was low compared with, say, Germany, and there the Catholics were convicting witches as well, as part of the 'Witch Craze' of the seventeenth century. All equally batty though.

I see your point about the arguments of Catholics vs Protestants: just a case of people manipulating history to suit their purposes, and incorrectly 'reading backwards' from the current situation to events centuries ago that, while they have undoubtedly had an influence, their precise effects are impossible to measure.

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 04:12PM

Colmustard · 11-08-2012 04:15PM

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

Duggys Housemate · 11-08-2012 04:16PM

Colmustard wrote: »

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

It does. This is a thread on an historical figure, and his resuscitation. To explain why he is in fact a Son of a Bitch, and yet there are people who like him, involves explaining historical biases.

entropi · 11-08-2012 04:20PM

OP, how do you know his ma was a bitch?

Nodin · 11-08-2012 04:28PM

Colmustard wrote: »

Does it matter as to who burned the most witches or tortured the most heretics or converted the most Jews.

Well finishing in the top 3 guarantees admission to the Champion Bastards league, with the attendant extra revenue.

purplepanda · 11-08-2012 05:42PM

The English people know more than enough about Cromwell & his actions, just because the political establishment & elite see him & portray him as a hero doesn't mean the man in the street does. The English have a folk memory just like the Irish do!

There are more than enough individuals in elite positions of power who would like a return to the days of Cromwell, & if the general population continue to cower & ignore the changing situation, oppression will ensue & loss of hard won liberties & rights could be lost in a couple of decades or even less.

"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many — they are few""

Shelly said it all many moons ago

Oliver Cromwell: Son Of A Bitch

Comments