Cromwell and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy (clip)

[joebstarsurfer]

Cromwells ideas where stolen by the monarcy.But Cromwell was typical lnadowner and clever general.But not the best people person lol.Unlike Englands royality great spin spinless morons.

[dmax631]

cromwell was a great man. royalist and catholic propaganda has destroyed his record

[wilkinson8707]

I'm bored of hearing Cromwell protestant someone other guy that's catholic let's kill each other then who wins can be hated yay yay why not ?

[afewtube]

Cromwell - avenger of the murder of Protestants by Irish Catholics!

[Rico8458]

was the king catholic

[bollockchops55]

cromwell was a great englishman , a soldier , a christian man , he did what he needed to do at the time unsavoury as it is now , name a country that hasnt

[kingdego]

cromwell was a damn puppet backed by the mystery bankers

[MrXray2011]

@bollockchops55 Cromwell was and still is a cunt. He commited the one crime that was a big no no even in the 1600's. No Charles 1st was not the best king but to kill a God's annointed King is slightly extreme. To force an abdication is one thing to take his fucking head is another. As I have said before may he rot for eternity in Hell. BTW I am a royalist but I do like parliament too so what he done sort of helped create our democratic system that we have today but still to kill a King? :)

[bobslay12]

@MrXray2011

Shut up cunt! I would have fought for Cromwell back then!

[MrXray2011]

@bobslay12 Then I would happily have stood opposit and shot you, I don't wish death upon you BTW that was just what I would have done back then.

[TheFoxington]

@bollockchops55 youve got the right name there ya bollocks. is that what you think was a great englishman.

[Adamalgorithm]

became obvious that more than gods help was needed? Yeah, because an imaginary friend cannot help you, you moron !

[familyman20]

Man!! I'm a descendant of Oliver Cromwell, he was pretty rough huh, guys, Please Irish don't hate me for him! lol I'm also of Irish descent too!! lol

[whikless]

Pfft, yeah, right. Loads of americans say they are decended from British Historical figures. And even if it's from a family tree it could just be made up or a different O.cromwell.

[LordOliverCromwell]

Nothing to be ashamed of, brother. Cromwell was a great man with great ideals.

[witchhunter32]

cromwell was a sectarianist bastard , who was he to take away catholics rights and to kill civilians at will parlaiment can fuck right off and monarchy shall be restored

[canadarox14]

Wow! You're descended from him? That's awesome. I think he was a bit of a jerk myself, but being related to him would rock.

[silverpizza100]

You miss the point that he opposed the King and the title and all it stood for, Oliver was for the common man in truth and wanted Scotland and Ireland for tax money and to be apart of England they didnt like the idea so Oliver was so brutal that no one dare stand in his way. He was a great leader and a true democrate. Sorry he killed anyone. ya know. But all countries have blood on their hands. Peace and respect to all......

[Versus1984]

For crying out loud! History is written in blood and and build on bones! There were much more disgusting bloodsheds in history than Cromwell's Irish campaign!What about the French Revolution, or Genghis Khan's conquest or the genocide over the native American population, or Caesar's Gaelic wars ? OC did what it has to be done and gave it's people the foundation of parliament democracy. Deal with it.

[emmetor]

Versus1984, you're absolutely wrong. There were few more disgusting bloodsheds than Cromwell's.

Buy yourself a book and start reading.

[Versus1984]

Thank you for the advice emmetor. You're absolutely right. There were quite a few significantly bloodier campaigns of terror over the history. I suggest you spare some extra cash for books and start paying attention to what you read :)

[emmetor]

Versus1984, everytime I drive to my sister's house, visited my aunty Eily (rip), went for a weekend away to Killarney, dropped into my cousin's place in Clare - like, no matter where I go, instead of seeing 16/17th century houses, like in England, I see cannon-smashed churches, and castle ruins with big holes in them, destroyed abbeys, ruined lives.

If you doubt it, then take a holiday. Bring yer books with you. The evidence is everywhere, and overwhelming.

[emmetor]

Versus1984: The french revolution? No.

Genghis Khan? I don't know.

NativeAm. genocide? Worse, but mostly due to diseases.

Caesar's Gaelic wars? Awful, but there was some honour at least. The Romans assimilated tribes. They were not taleban like the roundheads.

[farscapeone]

doesn't make the slaughter right

[farscapeone]

No different than any other army of that time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! try hating Spain France Hollond! they did the same shit ! but er oh that never happened in ireland, so you dont give a shit!!!!!William wallace slaughterd woman and children and NEVER offered any quarter to anyone! bet you wank over him

[Scoob505]

I don't wank over Wallace, I am not Scottish, I know the myth created in Braveheart in not true. But the information about Cromwell is true.

[farscapeone]

scoob ! I respect your views and most of all I respect your passion!Its very rare that lads of your age give such matters any concern at all, never mind show such Knowledge and passion, For what its worth I see Cromwell as more a man of his times than hero or demon!You can take what you want to out of history but please dont let it fuel your anger or hatred of anyone alive now! cheers

[emmetor]

farscapeone, you're a science fiction fanboy, obviously... fiction.

Why don't you learn some facts, before spouting your opinion about something that you don't know.

You're in major denial.

[Scoob505]

What he did in IRELAND shoadowed everything he had achieved.People say the greates atrocities were at drogheda and Waterford, they are wrong, women and children were all slaughtered in both cities but what his army did the normal civilians afterwards, from village to village, hanging women, men and children to draw out the rebels. He and his men, as well as Henry Ireton are responsible for the deaths of 1/5 to 1/4 the native population of ireland.

[farscapeone]

you've got serious problems (you fail to mention any atrocities inflicted on the settlers )!! sort yourself out, with your muslim terrorist mate Mohamed! how the fuck you can even converse with the likes of that twat and yet bang on about what happened 500 years ago is a joke

[Scoob505]

That " twat " has shown me no reason to racially hate him so far. Yes some Catholics did kill Protestants horribly, but compared to the number killed on the Catholic side, it was nothing. Even the Brit documentary admits to what he did, 1/5 to 1/4 population, dead, slaughter, cold steel in women priests children, rope round neck and bone, blood and mud.

[farscapeone]

arithmetic

[93rardo]

Also, the catholics who killed protestants were catholics who had just been dispossesed by the same protestants. They were trying to take their land and homes back stolen by the impious prots.

The Irish catholics were acting in self defense. The Irish were being invaded and opressed.

[93rardo]

Which book of his deals with religion?

[93rardo]

Cromwell and Calvinism represent inhuman anti-Christian Capitalism. Say no to Cromwell, say no to greed.

[NoBlowBama]

What in hell are you talking about?

[93rardo]

Read Max Weber's book 'The protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism'. He explains that Protestantism, especially Calvinism, came into exitance in order to encourage Capitalism. In short Protestantism morally justifies greed and selfishness. Think of the Work Ethic, Calling (to a job) and predestination (financial succes indicates salvation).

[farscapeone]

Mmmmmm read some Daniel Yergin instead

[Rhyfelwyr1872]

Cromwell isn't a British hero, unfortunately the Anglicans won in England in the end so we isn't very popular there; however he is still respected in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Cromwell was not a tyrant, often his harsh measures were taken against those who were threatening religious freedom within the Parliamentary cause. For example, the purging of Presbyterians (the parliament faction, not actual Calvinists) after their officers continally persectued dissenters such as Anabaptists.

[emmetor]

Rhyfelwyr1872, Cromwell persecuted everyone equally - provided they were English.

He ethnically cleansed, tortured, raped, maimed, enslaved, and killed a third of the Irish population.

Now, take each word and google it. Cromwell + slavery, Cromwell +Bahamas, Cromwell + sex slave, Cromwell +baby_on_a_spear.

etc.

[bobslay12]

@emmetor

Well if there Irish then theres nothing wrong with killing them.

[donnyab]

@bobslay12

lice.

[emmetor]

@bobslay12 you're just a common terrorist then. We've already seen tons of those. You're just picking on Ireland and Scotland just coz u have no specific ethnic identity or heritage of your own - which leaves you with angst and hate at other people's heritage. If you were a true Newcastlian, you'd be genetically identical to an picto-celtic Irishman, and you'd be missing all the southern scando-german-norman genes. So, who da paddy? Dasrite! You da paddy!! One of Us hehe! Dyou hate dat, boy?

[farscapeone]

shaping modern monarchy/parliament/country.

[farscapeone]

219970 your clearly well educated on this subject, and its heartening to hear such a well balanced view!however,your opinion that it was 'more circumstance than the man' is vauge at best!sure circumstances have a habit of shaping and changing history in times of great termoil!Indeed it was circumstance which forced cromwell into accepting the Protectorship/tyrant (he turned down the role of king). the point is, who else was there? (Fairfax was useless in office)Cromwell was/is the key figure in

[farscapeone]

look the English were conquered by both the Normans and the romans !! do you ever hear any English poeple spouting shite and blaming the romans for the reason the have a shit life????

[219970]

I see your point, but the Roman/Norman conquests were such a long time ago, and in such a different world (i.e. the notion of "England" didn't exist as it did in the mid C17) that their effects are limited in the present day. The Irish struggle is endemic of a long-running and brutal conflict with the English that ran (is stil running?) for years, from the mid C16 through to the C20. Hence why it is more of an issue for the Irish. But I agree, they should take responsibility for themselves more.

[emmetor]

farscapeone: If anything, the English conquered the remains of roman britain, the english themselves weren't in Britain during roman times, silly.

How often have you heard the Irish blame the Vikings for invading? How much anti-Norman rhetoric have you heard from Irish people? Not much.

So your point is lost. Try think of a better one.

[farscapeone]

its hysterical bullshitting and misinformation, that the scots and irish are fond of spouting about the English! fuck the facts when we've got BRAVEHEART!!!

[farscapeone]

look! you clearly have a hysterical slant on your judgment of him!!History is there to be learnt from and studied and dare I say it, enjoyed! you clearly have a shit life and blame cromwell and the english for all your hang ups !! Behave yourself and get yourself a life

[emmetor]

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children ... were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. ...52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers."

[supreme600]

why would Cromwell do such a thing? wasn't he fighting for the very thing he was against, a absolute tyrant?

[emmetor]

supreme600: "wasn't he fighting for the very thing he was against, a absolute tyrant?"

He was a christian who massacred other christians because of their religion.

Dictators need other tyrants to gain power, just like Al-Qaeda is conquering Somalia, thwarting the absolute power of the warlords and tribal lords, and putting in their own courts and ruling councils.

[supreme600]

Yes I understand now. I just saw a documentary about the civil war, what a sad time. BTW i read an article just recently how the Stuart kings blocked the Rothschild and Jesuits from creating a national bank and prevented the parasite bankers from taking over the money supply. It wasn't until they were disposed with William of Orange, that they got their wish in 1684 with the charter of the Bank of England. I suspect the anger leading up to the civil war was whipped up by these same bankers.

[lordhoot1]

@supreme600 The Rothschilds had nothing to do with the founding of the Bank of England. Their involvement in English finance began around 1800. William of Orange was staunchly Protestant so the Jesuits would have little to do with any of the policies of his reign. Other than that, 10/10 for accuracy.

[Klaiqi]

Oliver Cromwell massacred thousands of irish men because they did not give up fighting although they lost the battle of drogheda. He had no other choice. And Ireland was an ally of the english royalists and wanted to fall in in England to help the english royalists to destroy the new english democracy. Please consider that.

[farscapeone]

all as that shows is, cromwell was better at it than yourselves!!!

[avengemm9dog]

cromwell slaughtered 45% of the total native irish population. he killed millions of catholic men, women, and children for being catholic in his genocide.

[219970]

You have to judge him by the standards of the day. In the 17th century, it was quite common to put towns to the sword who resisted - it happened through the Hundred Years War and Cromwell (and others) were no worse. In any case, I'd be interested to see your source that states he killed almost 1 in 2 people. Do you have one?

[avengemm9dog]

cromwell might not of even been the worse, but he was still a very bad man. and that wasnt my point, the point i was trying to make is that cromwell needs to be stoped being treated as a hero by the british.

[219970]

History and human endeavours are not black and white, there are always shades of grey. Cromwell was not "good" or "bad" - you can't sum up any leader in such reductionist terms. His legacy in England is that he led a rebellion against a King who symbolised tyranny and absolute monarchy - from which modern England is founded. Equally, the man was a cruel figure and, like many others in that age, was brutal. Also, a lot of Irish terrorists are seen as heroes in Ireland, yet they murdered innocents

[avengemm9dog]

ture, but all that happened with cromwell was they replaced a monarch with a dictator and a tyrant. i do not consider cromwell as a victory for democracy like many of the british claim.

[219970]

Cromwell was a catalyst for change that led to our modern constitutional monarchy. Without the Civil War, there would have been no Interregnum where, as you say, Cromwell turned into a despot himself. But this led to a rejection of a Republic, and the embrace of a monarchy (albeit a reformed one, with limited powers) under Charles II - the foundations of what we have now. So, in this respect,Cromwell was instrumental in bringing democracy,though I agree that it was more circumstance than the man

[emmetor]

219970, of course, nobody is good or bad in history. That's the way your educational system works, provided the historical figure is not a foreigner.

Ooh.England never did that!! that was just because Lord so-and-so need to do such-and-such because the law stipulated this-and-that.

Whereas I do respect the UK's abililty to deal with politics fairly in the current era, there's still that legacy of dusty old academics with their cleaned-up history books.

[219970]

Also mate, did you ever get that source for your claim that Cromwell killed 1 in 2 of every Irish inhabitant at the time? I know that there were a number of particularly gruesome incidents, but I am not aware that he caused the death of nearly 50% of all the country. For a start, no records were kept that would enable such a figure to be taken, and in any case, such slaughter would have been worse than the potato famine, which remains Ireland's greatest tragedy. So, do you have a source?

[farscapeone]

stop whineing about cromwell in ireland! it was ok when catholics were slaughtering women and children on bridges and burning them to death in houses(english and scottish)!apart from Drogheda and wexford (Genocide) Cromwell offerd and gave Quarter ! if ya didn't accept you were fucked ! no different than any rules of conflict in europe at that time!whatever your views, what cromwell did and achieved marks him down as one of History's true greats!!

[avengemm9dog]

cromwell slaughtered 45% of the total native irish population. he killed millions of catholic men, women, and children for being catholic in his genocide. is that a "great" to you?

[emmetor]

"..1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Irelands population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000... Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britains solution was to auction them off as well. " - see post on caribbean slavery.

Cromwell: One of England's greatest slavers.

[farscapeone]

sorry I fell asleep during your insane school boy rant ! grow up a grow a few idea's , stop quoting from irish fantasy books and when you have a thought of your own , get back to me, until then dont get involved in a battle of wits when your unarmed sunshine!

[emmetor]

farscape, your difficulty with the information I posted is... that you think that my facts are untrue... is that correct?

You believe that they are fantasy? And that's why you're falling asleep? This is all you have to say? You're not even going to research-and-defend?

[Rhyfelwyr1872]

The invasion of Ireland was due to the fact that the native Irish were slaughtering the settlers. And the settlers had been sent there by the Anglican monarchs, who then fled to Ireland and took shelter with the people massacring their settlers. Cromwell stomped out the monarchy before it gained a foothold in Ireland.

Most of the Irish deaths were caused by famine anyway.

[emmetor]

The 'settlers' as you call them, were invading populations of foreigners backed up by militia, who forcibly evicted the locals from their own lands.

[emmetor]

To about the 'settlers' - that they were settling land which the natives had occupied, but were forcibly removed from - but some were later allowed to apply to the immigrant landowners to work as labourers on their own lands, provided they paid hefty taxes to his new lordship, and the crown, the might not be evicted. The only thing left to live on was the space in which only potatoes could grow.

This caused much money to flow to England for the creation of many nice streets and buildings!

[Ty0328]

wow, i just watched this movie in my European History Class. The movie paints it to be a cut and dry issue (cromwell+Parliment=Good, Monarchy+king=bad) however reading these comments it is CLEARLY not at all such a cut and dry issue haha.

my history teacher is gonna get one hell of an essay I'll tell you that much

[avengemm9dog]

how about you include how cromwell slaughtered 45% of the total native irish population. And he killed millions of catholic men, women, and children for being catholic in his genocide.

[Scoob505]

1/4 of the irish population slaughtered, women, children. He was a plague on this earth as were his successors and contributed to the rising nationalism in Ireland.

[spacepatrolman]

alaxander scourby narrated this he acted too like in a man from uncle episode

[surrealsan]

Typo... meh. "That comment did'nt make sense to me."

[surrealsan]

Cromwell was not remotely democratic in the modern sense. He believed in a theocarcy. He was nothing more than genocidal,regicidal,racist, religious fanatic....a bit like the God of the Old Testament when you think about it...

[zzxzqwq]

He was far more democratic than previous leaders. What is wrong is how he is taken out of the age he was in and judged while kings around him are not given same traetment. He was not racist he allowed jews back into england.

[bazzatheblue]

He also betrayed the revolution by destroying the levellers and closing parliament and making himself a king of sorts.

[Alba12349]

abit naughty?

fuck off u cunt. he was a wee bastard like you. and he's rotting in hell now.

i wish i knew wher his grave was so i could piss on it

[bazzatheblue]

Thanks for that Alba,the body of the great man is not known,it was thrown in a pit after being hung for a time,it was then decapitated and somebody kept the head,it was aquired by Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge(his old alma mater)it is buried in the grounds of that college,i suggest you check it out and whizz on it at your leisure,it aint going anywhere.I assume that it would turn your stomach to visit Merry old England,but do try,you are most welcome.

[Alba12349]

Rot in shit u scumbag

[Alba12349]

Cromwell is burning in hell for what he did to the Irish and Scottish people.

[bazzatheblue]

Wasn`t he an ally of the scots?

[Alba12349]

No he wasnt. He killed over 2000 civilians in Scotland and burned some towns to the ground. And even more in Ireland

[bazzatheblue]

Mind you you Scots did begin the civil wars,and Charles 1 was one of your own,born in Dunfermline.The Scots were the allies of the English parliament,the committee of both kingdoms?!It fell apart eventually but the Scots can`t deny there heavy involvement in the destruction wrought in Britain and Ireland, or cry foul as you are doing when some nasty thigs happend.Death and destruction occurred throughout the 3 kingdoms at that time.

[Alba12349]

some scots allied with them.

but nobody liked cromwell the shitebag. are you trying to say that he didnt do horrible things to scotland. u must be insane or something.

And i jusdt wish that engladn would never had gotten involved with any scottish or irish business. yes nobody was innocent but nobody has as much blood on their hand as the english goverment. so i just wish they never existed

Cromwell was a bastard. end of story.

[bazzatheblue]

Cromwell was a little naughty maybe but a man of his time.Sadly Scotland dragged England into the war and we paid by far the heaviest price and the Scots wished to impose their Presbtyerian religion on the English.Sadly for you Scots we English do exist,you must get to grips with your bigotry some day you know.

[zzxzqwq]

Scotland did not drag england into a war. The civil was was a started by the king. Cromwell was no wrose than the englisih kings.

[zzxzqwq]

The scots did not begin the civil war. It was stated by the king. Why are you blaming the scottish for this?

Cromwell was no worse than any english king.

The scots and english fought against the king. I do not see how this is scotland england issue. It was king v monarchy issue.

[bazzatheblue]

I know zzxzqwq,i just love winding up nationalist scot nationalist bigots like Alba,Cromwell just the same as any monarch it`s true.

[magocacana]

what a lot of bullshit..

Cromwell slaughtered thousands of irish,stealing ther lands, He was a terrible figure,the only good thing he did was the english repubblic that lasted mre or less 4 years,I must admit anyway that he had a military talent

[2QBUFF]

Oliver Cromwell was both good and bad ..Good because he got on top of Despotism from King Charles the 1st ..He got on top of Scotland and Ireland and gave us the UK instead of another Middle East ..I don,t think he let the jews in look up "The Money Masters" On youtube the Royals had already done that and they aren,t all bad .He did however put his own Land ownership ahead of a real republic and got the levellers to kill the Diggers..would of been better world today if people had more rights.

[surrealsan]

You do realise 618,000 people died because of his campaign in Ireland don't you. Is this what you call "getting on top of a situation." As for the U.K. being better than another middle east well because of the plantation uf Ulster that is essentially what we had in Ireland. I regard Cromwell as one of the worst historical figures from Irish and British history.

[2QBUFF]

Well you know what to do then ..Throw the tee shirt away and stop buying all his records ... 8 )

[surrealsan]

That did'nt comment did'nt make to me.

[seonidh]

Also 4.000 scottish soldiers died fighting him as he invaded Scotland (an indipendent nation in 1650 after ireland) he imprisoned a further 10.000 most of which died of disease or were sent to Barbados and then he marched on to Dundee and killed 2.000 men women and children! He was a cunt!

[bazzatheblue]

Hilarious!

[seonidh]

Snigger. . . you funny little man

[nickybilo]

oliver cromwell was never head of the new model army, that wa sir thomas fairfax, the battle of edgehill was indecisive, and Cromwell actually readmitted the Jews back to England

[caomhain]

Cromwell relished his massacres in Ireland. His hatred of Catholics rivaled Hitler's disdain for Jews. He was as sick and twisted. The comparison is not that far fetched. Had he Hitler's means, he would have surely used them to effect.

[54spiritedwill54]

As an amateur historian of the period...what a load of bollocks!

[zzxzqwq]

Cromwell ensured democracy across the planet he was better than any king.

[stewartkee]

Democracy is not arresting Parliment when they don't agree with you. in that case President Magabe must be the most democratic political leader in Africa today. Democracy began in Greace long before Cromwell. Cromwell was clearly a Military Dictator who used the Name Lord Protector. He Held exacly the same powers as any King, Made no Viable changes to the rights of men and his Anarchic system perished after his death. was.

[zzxzqwq]

Cromwell ENSURED democracy and did a damn sight more than many kings before him. He removed the right of kings to rule. He created progress. Do you give as much insults for any of the kings and queens. Why not? He made many changes and he did have parliament, that is propagandised as the rump parliament. You fall for monarchist propaganda.

[stewartkee]

Cromwell was a far worse Tyrant than any King. He Had Parlament Arrested when he couldn't get his own way. He Stands alone as the only ruler to be hated by all four countries - England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. He Dispised Catholicks and Anglians alike. Who Ever looks back at his time and thinks of it as a Golden Period. Impossable to Imagine that this came after the Golden Age of Elizabeth I. Democracy my Fucking Ass.

[zzxzqwq]

No he was not, the king killed more people. He used the both relgions for his cause at least cromwell was consitent in what he wanted. The king fought protestants and catholics to stay in power. And played them off against eachiother

[stewartkee]

The King Killed more people did he? What about the thousands of dead English, Welsh, Scots and Irish? Or Do They count as people in your Mathamatic Reasoning. Compare this Protestant leader to Someone Like Elizabeth I. In terms of Democracy Cromwell was more the Protestant Answer to Bloody Mary. In Fact You Would Have to Go as Far Back as Edward Longshanks to Find a Monarch as Detestable as Cromwell. And Cromwel was not Consistent he was Fanatical. As Was Hitler After Him.

[zzxzqwq]

The king did kill more people. I do not understand your logic. He started the war as he refused democracy for parliament, he used both religions to kill people. Longshanks was evil but so were all english kings I cannot see how you can see Henry the 8th, or william the conqurer, or as nicer than Cromwell or Cromwell was no wiorse than any english king or queen before him. Cronmwell let jews BACK into England So how on earth is he comparable to Hitler.

[stewartkee]

The Logic is this: Cromwell let the Jews in for Money, not for Humanitarian Reasons - he even said so himself. And while Charles I closed down Parliment, Cromwell not only closed down parliment to make himself Lord Protector - with in effect the exact same powers as Charles I before him - but he had those sitting in Parlimant executed for voting against him.

[zzxzqwq]

Stewart you are bigoted nazi creep, and a traitor to the british people. If you had you way this country would still be a tyrannt of kings. You stand up for the queen and called me traitor for being against her then you pull thios Bull shit out about cromwell. He was a good man who let the jews back in while your monarchist heroes persecuted them, End of story.

[stewartkee]

The Whole point of the Civil war was that the King Didn't have the right to Challenge Parlament. Cromwell arrested them and had them executed and in so doing missed the entire point. Ask the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Non-Hard-Line Presbaterians of England How Democratic he was or who killed the more people.

[zzxzqwq]

I am scottish. I recognise he did bad things to us but no worse than any other english king or queen. He let jews back into england, and stood up for democracy. Previos english kings killed far far mor. You are conned by monarchist propaganda. Who let the jews back? I do not think he could have been that bigotted if he let back the jews. TYhere is much re-writing of history.

[YeOldeTune]

Elizabeth I was great. Cromwell had nothing to do compared to her.

[zzxzqwq]

Elizabeth massacred Irish people. Plus she was far more of tyrant who did fuck all for democracy.

[bazzatheblue]

But she was a great monarch and a true patriot.

[zzxzqwq]

Nope she was an evil tyrant. Far more like Hitler than Cromwell. She kept jews banned from england.

[bazzatheblue]

Crap!

[zzxzqwq]

No you are.

[tooharsh]

yeh ask an irish n his thought about cromwell!

[Davephobic]

Totally wrong the "roundheads" didnt get trounced at Edgehill it was inconclusive, and Cromwells cavalry unit was called ironsides not his army. Also the parlementarians had "gentlemen" too such as lord essex and manchester and numerous others. The film was very inaccurate especially when cromwell spoke a royalist prayer on the battlefield....

Lame :P

[landsker]

Cromwell raised an army, but just who paid for that army? The answer lies within the Dutch jewish community, enraged still at their expulsion from England in 1290, they funneled immense ammounts of money to Cromwell. As a reward, he allowed them to return to Britain, where they became the driving force behind most of Britain`s empirical ambitions. His principal financiers were Manasseh Ben Israel and Moses Carvajal. Google search those names, and see why Cromwell was merely the front man.

[blesedbiangels]

... but the horses hooves in this video sound so realistic.

[blackdress69]

The reason for the popularity of Oliver Cromwell is a topic of fascinated debate for many "history" people. My opinion is that Cromwell was a man of very strong religious conviction (he was a farmer's son who trained as a lawyer) who appears to have genuinely wanted religious liberty. I guess you could call him the first real "Prime Minister - Lord Protector". Although I don't necessarily agree with his actions. Cromwell didn't have a happy or fulfilled life, the wars ruined him...

[edwardianeccentric]

Sixthly, 'Ironside' was not a term used to describe the entire NMA, but a term reserved for Cromwell's heavy cavalry troop, and other similar troops.

Seventhly, I don't know if the messengers message was meant to be a gross underestimation of the Parliament forces, but there was a LOT more men than that at Naseby, on both sides!

[edwardianeccentric]

Fifthly 'Roundhead' was a term that sprang up very early in the war, not on the training of the NMA. Moreover like 'Cavalier' it was a derogatory term based on the haircuts of the Puritans, when most (including most Parliamentary men) wore their hair long in the universal fashion of the period.

[edwardianeccentric]

As an amateur historian of the period...what a load of bollocks!

[AOZXRAY]

As a fan of Cromwell and Ireton and the revolution for representative government they played an indispensible role in, I find the smug scorn put upon them painful,and attribute it to a conspiracy to destroy all heroic figures, and reduce Man to mush. Look deeper, and go back before the liars and naves took over academia.

[edwardianeccentric]

I understand your appreciation for Cromwell but firstly, it wasn't Cromwell who raised the Parliament Army, it was largely Parliament, and specifically the members of the Lords who supported the Parliament cause who were of course rich enough to equip their men. Cromwell in fact only came to the fore in highup circles after the first war (that which ended at Naseby in 1645) was over.

[edwardianeccentric]

Moreover the 'Puritan' influence was slight; there was a Protestant influence against what was seen to be (with some truth) a Papist monarch.

[edwardianeccentric]

Secondly, they were rather better armed than with pikes and pitchforks, and to say they had a belief in the Lord is misleading; both sides had a belief in the Lord- the old saying used by every army that has taken to the field 'God is on our side'.

Thirdly Edgehill was not a humiliating defeat- it was a very close run thing and neither side could truly claim a victory.

[edwardianeccentric]

Fourthly Cromwell played a minor role in the raising and training of the New Model Army- the man of the hour was Parliaments main military leader, Fairfax. Cromwell continued in his role as commander of his personal (well trained and effective) Cavalry troop.

[edwardianeccentric]

Also the clothing worn in this film is painfully inaccurate, because it is completely taken from the film 'Cromwell', made in the 1970's, when research into the period beyond high politics was still minimal.

[AOZXRAY]

Thank you much for your detailed commentary.

No doubt you are right in much of this.

-yes, both sides believed in the Lord, but the Catholic side had become more of a belief in a church hierarchy and institution than the Lord.

-Have you read the Putney debates?

-The Puritans/Protestants fasted and prayed for direction directly from the Lord in such a way as the Catholics did not, relying more on Church teachings as the basis of decisions.

[AOZXRAY]

However, Cromwell's ironsides saved the day far more than once.

However, it is puzzling why Cromwell gets so much "press" and the other figures so little.

Why do you think that is?

Is it simply easier to attribute things to one great man somehow endowed with charisma than to look at the hard work of many men?

[edwardianeccentric]

Cromwell's Ironsides were indeed elite troops and probably did save the day frequently- though I am not well read on their day to day actions.

It is indeed puzzling why Cromwell gets so much press, I would ascribe it largely to two things- first when he became Lord Protector (and arguably Dictator) of Britain it is probable propaganda (from him or those trying to ingratiate themselves) portrayed him as THE man of the hour.

[edwardianeccentric]

The second is the historians of the Victorian period, who did enjoy romanticising all they could get their hands on (look at the horned helmets they gave the Vikings!) latched onto him as Lord Protector and presumed he was the man behind it all.

I haven't read the Putney debates, though they are high on my list of things to become familiar with in the near future, I am assured by many more well read friends that they make for interesting and enlightening reading.

[edwardianeccentric]

I think perhaps the Catholic/Protestant divide you describe is simplified but I basically agree, though I think the catholic/protestant = royalist/parliamentarian is an extreme simplification that doesn't stand to scrutiny. The Catholic/Protestant divide was more between Rich/Poor, so the division would have split through both factions, though probably with more Catholic sympathisers on the Royalist side.

[edwardianeccentric]

There is evidence that much of the poor were largely indifferent to religion. Not in the way western civilisation largely is today, but in an indifference to the Protestant/Catholic divide- going back 100 years, is it not surprising there was less opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries, the end of a system of religion that stretched back a millennium in Britain?

[AOZXRAY]

Methinks their time was over, they were stagnant, and the time for a spirituality much more integrated with daily life had/has come.

[AOZXRAY]

googlebooks has these online- I find them pleasurable reading. The statesmen of the commonwealth of England,: With a treatise on the popular progress in English history

The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England,: With a treatise on the popular progress in English history by John Forster

History of the Commonwealth of England: From Its Commencement, to the Restoration of Charles II.

[joelpatricksimmons]

my mother is a cromwell we are related to oliver cromwell and thomas cromwell who was archbisop of canterbury the cromwell' no we live in arkansas and texas and several cromwell knight's

[YeOldeTune]

Tom Cromwell was never Arcnbishop of Canterbury!

[jockeylad]

I believe he meant The Battle of Powick Bridge as the first decisive victory for the Royalist Cavaliers.

[stewartkee]

Well at least your being open minded and reasnable (Heavy Sarcasem)