Something different: Oliver Cromwell

[Larry Lovage]

Following a lead in wikipedia, I found this book, Oliver Cromwell, An Honourable Enemy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cromwell-Honourable-Enemy-Tom-Reilly/dp/1842120808/ref=sr_1_3/202-0221325-0071800?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175769202&sr=8-3), written by an Irishman, that attempts to rehabilitate Oliver Cromwell from the accusations of having been a genocidal tyrant, particularly in Ireland.


With this kind of subject, either you know about it or you don't, and if you don't you might just shrug your shoulders and think, "Interesting idea."

Here is the author's own description of his book, however, and as far as I can see it throws up all sorts of red flags as being completely characteristic of the average Conspiracy Theorist. I'm wondering if others here have the same reaction:From the Author
This book is ahead of its time
As author of this book, I feel that many historians in Ireland are not ready yet for 'an honourable' Cromwell - nor indeed are the people of Ireland. I thought that I would change the history books and public opinion about this much maligned historical figure by publishing the truth about Cromwell's Irish campaign. The reaction - among the under forties on the whole - was good, but among historians and the over forties it was bad. They can't seem to accept that an amateur could discover such a fundamental flaw in Irish history ie that neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign. The facts are there for all to see. But God bless Ireland the past is still the present here and we MUST have our English hate figures - despite the truth. How sad is that?The third (and earliest) user review provides an excellent demolition of the thesis.

[Big Les]

Interesting; this does have the air of "alternative history" rather than well-meaning (and useful) revisionism. But pieces like this can be attempt to bring some objectivity and balance (some might say 20/20 hindsight) to an old historical/political chestnut, and they can receive some stick from other historians. Take Scotland, England, and the '45 rebellion. The traditional view is of the English repressing "the Scots", but historians have done the work and today show how complex the situation was; it was a political struggle with religious elements, and in fact more Scots supported the British government than did the Jacobites. The British actually shot themselves in the foot historically by characterising it as putting down the highlanders and bringing civilisation. And no doubt the reprisals there were terrible. But most lowland Scots either knew nothing of the highlanders or viewed them with suspicion/as criminals.

This looks to be rather more in the vein of denialism; no one pointing out that the '45 was a British civil war rather than the last brave effort of free Scotland, would claim that the Duke of Cumberland was really a lovely chap, and rescued orphaned kittens in his spare time, never ordering the savage reprisals we know that he did. They might however, try to place him in context as a man of his time, and explain his motivations, beliefs, reasons and so on. One could do the same for Hitler or Stalin without straying into denialist territory, but with even less latitude; their crimes are more reliably documented than those of 300 years ago.

The truth of these matters usually lies somewhere between the views of bitter resentment and of blinkered denial. I'd have to read both this book and a hell of a lot more sources for the time before I could call this either way, but the reaction of other historians will be a good barometer; just as with peer review for scientific work. If this guy is a CT-style frootloop, he will either be called as such or politely ignored. If he makes any valid points, these will be examined and accepted. If that one-star review is anything to go by, he's in for a tough ride.

[fuelair]

Ireland or not Cromwell and his slime followers were Rule8s all the way - not to mention murderers, destroyers of culture, promulgators of primitive beliefs and ridiculous levels of following them. About as much value as the revolutionist murderers in France a bit later. (That would be none.)

I should admit to minor prejudice here - I believe terrorists' only reason for existence is to serve as targets.

[Thunder]

It appears that Cromwell viewed Catholocism to be a political movement that had to be crushed. Thats not nice.

[kookbreaker]

It appears that Cromwell viewed Catholocism to be a political movement that had to be crushed. Thats not nice.

Catholicism tended to view Protestantism ino the same manner.

[MG1962]

It is interesting. Most of what Cromwell pulled in Ireland was on the up and up. He did hit the place with a vengence. However many of the same incidents he is blamed for in England have largely been dispelled as bad publicity.

Watching the movie, Cromwell brings a very distorted view of the man. Reading a reasonable history of the time reveals his true character. And although he was a product of product of his time. He was still a (rule 8) of a man

[westprog]

It is interesting. Most of what Cromwell pulled in Ireland was on the up and up. He did hit the place with a vengence. However many of the same incidents he is blamed for in England have largely been dispelled as bad publicity.

Watching the movie, Cromwell brings a very distorted view of the man. Reading a reasonable history of the time reveals his true character. And although he was a product of product of his time. He was still a (rule 8) of a man

There's something called, I think, the Whig viewpoint of history, in which there's a movement towards freedom and democracy which is always associated with Whig/Republicans/Socialists and in particular protestants, and opposed by Tories/Royalists and in particular catholics. It isn't that it's always wrong - just that it tends to rationalise away things that don't fit with the ever onward and upward view. In the Whig view, Cromwell is a proto-democrat and champion of human rights, regardless of the facts.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here's a link for the Whig Interpretation of History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history