Talk:Oliver Cromwell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias

This is so bias. Its very pro Cromwell. It makes him out to be good. I think Irish people would not just claim he is evil. He was pure evil and in historical terms he was fighting for a fake religion which was founded for nothing to do with religion

The start of this is bias to British people. Saying he is best known for the English Civil war (which he is in British peoples eyes) But excluding how Irish people view him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.1.182 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It says in the lead that he is widely hated in Ireland. Obviously the article is going to focus more on how he is viewed in England, since he was English and that is where he lived and was most active. The mere fact that he pissed off the irish doesn't justify giving the irish viewpoint centre stage. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No the lead does NOT say that he is widely hated in Ireland. It is buried at the very bottom as though this were an irrelevancy . WHY should the article focus more on how he is viewed in England? That he is "mainly" known for his "administration" of England, Scotland and Ireland is EXTREMELY debatable.

He didn't "piss off" the Irish. He committed genocide there.

24.20.220.197 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the notes above:

First of all, the Puritan religion was not a 'fake' religion. If you had actually studied history, you would know that the Pilgrims in America were Puritans and that the Puritan religion's focus was to purify the Church of England, which was very corrupt at the time. To me, it seems like Puritans did found their beliefs based off of religion...

Second of all, you call Cromwell's conquest of Ireland a 'genocide'. People who have actually experienced genocide would find that offensive. The 'massacre' of Drogheda receives so much attention as being an example of Cromwell's cruelty, but according to primary sources, he first asked the city to surrender. He specifically warned them that their city would be destroyed if they didn't surrender, but the people refused. This was a war, just so you know, and in most wars, civilians get killed. Primary sources also say that those who surrendered to Cromwell had their lives spared. Compared to most conquerers, Cromwell was very generous.

My point is this. If you're going to say horrible things about a person or an article, you should at least get your facts straight first. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.161.90 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture?

Although we have the section on "posthumous reputation", it is surprising that there is no mention here of the film 'Cromwell which does appear in the article for his wife Elizabeth Bourchier. Surely he has also been the subject of some stage drama? television drama? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a play by Victor Hugo, which was rather successful in his times. Sorry, I don't know anything else about it. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Buchraeumer. Yes it's already here: Cromwell (play). So a good starting point, I'd suggest, together with any further detail about the film? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The film (1970) also has an article: Cromwell (film), as I just found out via Richard Harris (actor). (I am a little embarrassed about how little I knew about WP's scope in these things!) Buchraeumer (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Embarrasment shared, Buchraeumer. I'd suggest that the existing section on posthumous reputation remains and is used mainly for historical/ political appraisal, but that some or all of the details on commemorative statues be used to form a new section on popular culture. I am guessing that most of the notable worlks or art are already actually shown, but a list of artists who have used Cromwell as a subject might be another facet? Street names might be going a bit far. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! I think the section on posthumous reputation is very good so far as historians and so on are concerned. Good luck! Buchraeumer (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it says that "Cromwell" (I think I spelled it right) was the Codeword for the German Invasion of Britain. I think that "German Invasion of Britain" should be linked to the page on the indefinetly postponed Operation Sea Lion. I tried to do it myself, but was unable to do so for fear of accidentally screwing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.131.53 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New images

I recently uploaded some images of Oliver Cromwell. These are both after Samuel Cooper and probably take some artistic license in their depictions.

• 
• 

Dcoetzee 09:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Turning this article into a Featured article

I think we should raise the status of this article to a featured article. It's one of the articles on wikipedia that has more contents, more sources and is, generally, well written. Who wants to help me raise this article? Give suggestions and more information in the article, not forgetting your sources. Thank you for your atention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allarand Arcadia (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-made Emperor

In the section on "political reputation", it says some historians have compared him to later collectivist authoritarian rulers in the 20th century (Italy, Germany, so on). But what about Napoleon Bonaparte? Have any historians compared him to Bonapartism? Both are from bourgeois stock and managed to make themselves into powerful Emperors, when based purely on background they would have been unremarkable. Funnily enough political subversive Stuart Christie describes Francisco Franco as a "hybrid Oliver Cromwell and Torquemada, with a sword in one hand and a holy relic in the other." Though obviously Franco wasn't a heretic and atleast pretended to be a monarchist. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

posthumous execution 1660 or 1661?

This article says 1660, but 1661 claims it happened then. Which is right? -- Q Chris (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was 1661 - see here for example: [1]. The article gets it right further down, I think it's just that the lede is misleadingly phrased. The 1660 presumably refers back to the mention of the Restoration rather than the posthumous execution. I'll change it in a sec. Greycap (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell signing Charles' death warrant

I just read most of this article and in the opening paragraph it states that Cromwell was the first to sign Charles' death warrant and in another place it says it was the third. Clearly both cannot be correct. I didn't want to fix this since I don't know which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.235.21 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've changed this, he was third not first: see here [2]. Greycap (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Stewart

This I find odd: we get the dates of Robert Cromwell's birth and death, but neither one of his wife. And there's no indication that those dates are unknown. So, any reason to leave Mrs. Cromwell out of the dating process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.193.179 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conquest of Ireland

The statement currently in the article that "Cromwell never accepted that he was responsible for the killing of civilians in Ireland, claiming that he had acted harshly, but only against those "in arms"." is not supportable with regard to the evidence that he acknowledged such killings. Similarly bland statements that only men under arms in Drogheda were killed, do not tally with evidence as put forward by prominent accounts. I think the issue of civilian and other killings in the sack of Drogheda needs revisiting. Xandar 00:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. However I would have thought that it would be more relevant for the article, Siege of Drogheda which currently has little or nothing about it, than for this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

However this article makes a couple of bald statements that I don't think can be justified, such as the ones referred to above. These definitely need re-examining and reworking. Xandar 02:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Error On Page

I accidentally the whole start of the page. Kindly fix if you know how to do this. I apologize for mistake.66.65.45.62 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cromwell and "genocide" in intro

The concept of "genocide" was invented in 1944 by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. Applying secular humanist concepts to Cromwell and other historical figures who lived long before the concept was coined surely isn't in historical perspective (if Cromwell, why not Alexander, why not Ceaser, why not Napoleon, why not Gengis Kahn, why not Mohammed?.. you get the point). Were the activies of Charlemange against the Saxons inline with international "Human Rights"? While I can't say I have any sympathy for the man, as a royalist non-schismatic of half Gaelic descent, other than the fact that he seems to paradoxically irritate his fellow republicans in Ireland, a better wording should be found. Perhaps just present a brief summary of the most controversial events. Its also Hibernocentric, Cromwell & co incited the bloodiest internal conflict in the history of England, yet no "victim" status is offered to Royalists. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"His measures against Irish Catholics have been characterized by some historians as genocidal or near-genocidal," it says. Why don't you ask the historians that question? Would you say you are a royalist because you appreciate your own royal family or just in reference to a system of royal rulership in the big world? But hey, could you define genocide as a secular humanist concept and explain its poor effect upon this article? Then we could surely remove all mention of it. Thanks, ~ R.T.G 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally? royal governance, all the time, all over the world. But regardless, I think if we apply 2010 currents and standards, onto the 17th century which was quite a different era, then the articles on Wikipedia are going to end up a complete mess. Where do we stop? Are the massacres of the Norsemen of Limerick by Gaels a "genocide", even though they would never have heard of the concept since it hadn't been invented until 1944? What about the violent destruction of plantations during this era? Applying the genocide tag to world events in the modern era is a controversial task, without applying it to far distant history also. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessarily anachronistic to apply 20th or 21st century analytical concepts to trying to understand periods in which those concepts did not exist. Otherwise we would not be able to discuss the economy, or society, or culture, etc of periods before those terms took on their current meanings. But we do, and we do so because they are useful analytical categories. I don't happen to agree that Cromwell's actions in Ireland amounted to genocide, although I still find them objectively appalling judged by my own moral standards - but others do take that line, and the point of Wikipedia is to reflect significant dissenting views on particular topics. Even by the standards of his own time, some found Cromwell's actions extreme, but most of the English population (fuelled by exaggerated accounts of the 1641 rebellion) would probably have agreed with his actions. Some would argue those are the standards by which he should be judged. But the point is that Wikipedia has to reflect significant views whether contemporary or modern on figures like Cromwell, and currently I think the article does a reasonable job of covering both.

On your point about royalists, for a start Cromwell was a minor backbencher at the point the civil war started. He really didn't have a role in starting the first civil war. Even so, there is nothing in Cromwell's actions in English campaigns to compare to Cromwell's actions in Ireland. The sack of Basing House is perhaps the closest comparison in terms of showing no mercy to a besieged garrison, and that was probably motivated by the defenders' Catholism, not their royalism. Greycap (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On Cromwell and genocide, the modern concept of genocide may well have been invented in 1944 but it was a common practice throughout history. Controversy still rages about a number of events which predate 1944 but are passionately described as genocide, or not, by varying parties. You can have the argument about Armenia, Ukraine, North American Indians, South American Indians, Ireland in the famine, etc, etc. and find differing personal views on any or all of these cases. In this case, the text on Cromwell is well supported by reputable scholarly reference and - fortunately - the events are long enough ago to not really be controversial any more. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)