Talk:Oliver Cromwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oliver Cromwell article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Military work group.

[edit] GA status is on hold

I would pass this article immediately if not for 3 things:

The red links need to be fixed.
A citation is needed on the last paragraph of "Scottish Campaign".
A more citations are needed on the first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I have removed all the red links. --Banana04131 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Jdorney adding references, I think that means all 3 points have now been picked up. Greycap 07:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...although I've just noticed the latter half of the footnotes are messed up. Is there anyone with more html skills than me who knows how to fix them? Greycap 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. a / was missing in fn 42 Rjensen 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passage

After further review of my points above, I passed this article as a good article. Thank you for all of your corrections. Diez2 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

Can someone explain how these two statements are compatible: "Though there were some atrocities committed, it was not an act of genocide against the Irish." AND "William Petty estimated in his demographic survey of Ireland in the 1650s that the war of 1641–53 had resulted in the death or exile of over 600,000 people, or around one third of Ireland's pre-war population." The first statement seems POV to me - a number of historians have called it genocide, and forcing people to move to Connacht is ethnic cleansing, without a doubt. Supersheep 12:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A few points here. Cromwell was only involved in the 1641-53 war for nine months in 1649-50. The death and exile toll is for the whole war, so he can't be held responsible for all of it. On top of that, most of the deaths in the war were caused by famine and plague rather than direct human action. Perhaps we could do without, "not genocide" the sentence though, since the article does not accuse him of genocide in the first place. Re the transplantation to Connacht, the specific context here is that Cromwell's regime expropriated Irish Catholic landowners, but allowed them to claim eqivilent lands west of the Shannon. This is not exactly the same as forced displacment of an entire populace (although this also occurred in places as a counter-guerrilla measure). In theory, any landowner who was transplanted and did not move could be executed, but in fact, this was never carried out. A lot of people called the Cromwellian's bluff and stayed put until the restoration.

Jdorney 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwellian

Folkies unite! Two-in-a-bar needs saving:

a folkish couple with a wooden guitar start up Sweet Polly Oliver in a tiny bar on a winter’s evening, or Old Walter incautiously picks up the spoons, the landlord is potentially looking at ruin and prison bars. It is positively Cromwellian. As one campaigner puts it: “The present situation in which widescreen televisions in pubs do not require a licence, while a single acoustic musician or singer does . . . testifies to the extent to which the present Government is the patsy of big business, particularly in the entertainment industries.”

What does "Cromwellian" mean here? Is there some connotation that should be put into the article? --84.20.17.84 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cromwellian in this context means "harsh, oppressive and unjust". Probably used by someone with reference to Cromwell's activities in Ireland?

Jdorney 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At first I thought it was a typo for Orwellian. --84.20.17.84 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is actually to Cromwell's activities in England. Specifically his banning of theatres and other "frivolous", lewd and ungodly entertainment. It's a slippery slope: they start with the spoons and before you know it, they're running bingo nights, holding barn dances and attending mass (probably black mass at that). So better to keep the singing in church where God intended it to be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually having just read through the article I can see no mention of the cultural effects of the Cromwell's rule (such as the closure of theatres, etc.) so there is still a hole to be filled, unless this is all covered in associated articles on Cromwellian rule in Britain and Ireland. -- Derek Ross | Talk

As I understand it, those were implemented and enforced by the Rump Parliament. Cromwell, when he came to power, was actually a liberalising influence; while he did not permit theatre, he turned a blind eye to the celebration of Christmas and positively revelled in chamber music. English opera first appeared during this period, and port was introduced to England. Mon Vier 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godly

Is the use of the word "godly" NPOV in this article? --84.20.17.84 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

no it describes Cromwell pretty well--it means: PIOUS, RIGHTEOUS, DEVOUT Rjensen 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It also means "divine: emanating from God", which is non-neutral. However "Puritan" says:

It was a term of abuse that first surfaced in the 1560s. "Recusants", "Precisemen" and "Precisions" were other early antagonistic terms for Puritans who preferred to call themselves "the godly."

So it could be a trade-term if written between quotes. --84.20.17.84 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NO, "godly" applied to a person only means pious. As Macaulay noted. "Soon the world begins to find out that the godly are not better than other men." Rjensen 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

We need to get ths article protected, as it suffers from a huge amount of petty vandalism. Jdorney 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However let's try semi-protection first. That should cut out the "drive-by" stuff at any rate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it has become something of a ritual for me to restore this page after hit and run vandalism, and it does seem to have increased in recent months. Agree that semi-protection is probably the way forward for now. Greycap 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. The semi-protection will expire at midnight on the 30 June, though. If anyone wants to discuss the semi-protection further, please do so here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good man Derek.

Jdorney 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament

This parliament only lasted four weeks.

What is meant by this? King Charles dissolved it again, and then called the Long Parliament? If so, this needs to be added in this article. (Sorry for any mistakes!) --Mike F (German Wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.3.113.56 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I seem to remember this bit of the article being a bit longer in the past, but may have made this up. I've tidied it up in any case. Greycap 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better now. --Mike F

[edit] Nobles as soldiers?

It is mentioned here that Manchester didn´like the fact that Cromwell recruited men of "low birth" for the army. In my opinion, this wouldn´t make any sense. I guess that the dispute was about promoting these men to officers, which is also suggested by Cromwell´s quotation. --Mike F —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.3.113.57 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bias

In the "Posthumous reputation" I see nothing of 20th century historians who still view him generally negatively - currently it seems to be a very one-sided account of those who consider him more favourably, ignoring those who don't. This needs to be addressed to get a real sense of the debate about him, before the article can move on. John Smith's 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It does need something on Christopher Hill and other "betrayed the revolution" interpreters, as well as something on Abbott and others who compared him to European dictators. I'll have a go at knocking something together tonight.Greycap 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) By all means add some material (and sources) to this effect. It does sound from the article that he's viewed almost exclusively favourably at the present time, and I'm sure that's not quite correct. That said, the balance of opinion might tend that way, and it's important that this is communicated by the article as well. Among other things, Cromwell did finish 10th in the Beeb's 100 Greatest Britons vote! ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Greycap. I think the section needs a general overhaul. It currently seems to be a historical account of how people started to see him as an "ok-sort-of-guy". I think it could do with some criticism earlier on too (if you can find it) - maybe also reduce some of the earlier comments? It just seems a bit strange reading it at the moment. John Smith's 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago, I know what you mean, but the general public can't really make objective comments on historical figures. It's up to the academics - plus I doubt the Irish would agree that's the position. Also it's not possible to say "the balance of opinion might tend that way" - there's no academic body that can speak for historical opinion generally. John Smith's 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true that in general most historians of Cromwell take his religion much more seriously and are now tending to see more consistency in his views and actions - that's not the same as seeing him as an "ok-sort-of-guy", necessarily. But the article could do more to bring out a bit of the controversy, I will need to dig out some source material but will put this on my list of things to edit. Greycap 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think his religion isn't an issue, though one could ask how any Christian could justify the murder of old men, women and children - I know many people didn't see things that way in the 17th century. I think the section may have implied he was "ok" by lack of the discussion of the controversy. Take as much time as you need - I would prefer to see a great re-write than a rushed one. If you need any help from me on style, content, etc, just ask. John Smith's 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oh, I understand. I was really just joking about the 100 Greatest Britons (not least because "greatest" doesn't by any stretch mean "best liked"; Thatcher, let's not forget, was in the top 20). What I meant about balance was that it could very well be the case that 90 out every 100 academic historians (who expressed a preference ...) were big fans of Cromwell's and that, were this the case, it would be important for the article to convey this as well. However, as you've already noted, quantification of this kind isn't so easy (though sometimes these things are polled; did 100 Greatest Britons try anything serious like this?). Anyway, I reckon making it clear that opinion is divided would be a good start for the time being. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My cheapshot about quantification isn't entirely arm-wavey. Cromwell, like most historical figures, waxes and wanes in approval with time. Noting that, for instance, he's "waxed" at the present time may be interesting for future Wikipedian editors when he may well be "waned" (or vice versa). His approval is the sort of thing historians seem to occasionally use as a barometer for opinion on certain topics (e.g. Royalty). --Plumbago 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, ok - it's just that some people take the "viewer-interactive" part of the BBC website too seriously. Also your comment about opinion on topics like the Royal Family is interesting, because royalty remains popular in the UK. So if his supporters are Republicans, that might show they're actually in the minority. Or people think that it was ok for him to take on Charles I - opinion on him is difficult to pin down - or indeed they just disagree with his pre-Commonwealth actions. John Smith's 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petty / Down Survey

I deleted this sentence (and again!): "William Petty estimated in his demographic survey of Ireland in the 1650s that the war of 1641–53 had resulted in the death or exile of over 600,000 people, or around one third of Ireland's pre-war population.^[1]" The citation referenced says no such thing. I have this book and it builds a case for population loss in Ireland using the Down Survey referred to plus other historic sources to try to guestimate the popn loss figures from the Cromwell war - the Down Survey itself and Petty made no such observation, nor would they have given that they were in Cromwell's employ! Please don't revert back unless you know better and can make the case. I suggest direct reference to the Down Survey for example to support such a wrong allegation. MarkThomas 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest what figure do Kenyon and Ohlmeyer come up with for their guestimate ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kenyon & Ohlmeyer's book does come up with that figure, I am not disputing that they claim it; just that it was in the Down Survey. In fact, K & O are in excess of the most widely cited figure of about 400,000 - as for example in Levene & Roberts "[The Massacre in History http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&q=death+toll+Cromwell+Irish+Campaign&as_brr=0]" which gives a figure of roughly 400,000 deaths estimated over those years. MarkThomas 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point - figures of deaths in Ireland, as in England and Scotland, during the civil war period, should be approached with caution as to cause - the widespread social, economic and food production dislocation in mainland Britain during this period had very widespread effects on all surrounding countries, and caused famine, lack of supplies and lack of trade, all of which must have contributed to mortality without being directly due to "murder" or "warfare". There is considerable evidence for example of enhanced mortality during this period in the Western Isles and Orkney/Shetland, both unaffected by direct warfare. MarkThomas 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell's alleged "genocide" in Ireland

Hugh Sheehy is repeatedly adding references to the introduction which he claims justify the assertion that Cromwell committed "genocide" in Ireland; one of these appears to be to a book that I don't have and does not appear on Google Books, called "Twentieth Century Genocide" so at first sight appears to be irrelevant; does anyone else have that book who can comment please? I would contest (see Down Survey above, another Hugh reference which was discredited as "proof" of genocide) that there was a Cromwell "Genocide" in Ireland. Does anyone else want to contribute to this please? For one very basic point is that Cromwell's excursion into Ireland was motivated both by religious hatred and a political/military desire to stop Ireland serving as a base for Spanish/French invasion of Britain. Genocide can extend to mass-murder based on religion but usually refers to deliberate mass-murder of a racial group, which I don't think objectively applies. Comments? (Hugh, please reply here if you wish to join the discussion rather than on my talk page). MarkThomas 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The refs are available to anyone with a library or Amazon.com. I never any reference to a "Down Survey" so I can't comment on that. Perhaps MarkThomas is getting confused again. In any case, he continually accuses me of POV edits on this and other pages. I apologise to the regular editors of this page for this sequence of edits.

Also, the use of the Tom Reilly ref in the intro should be looked at by a specialist. The claim that Tom Reilly makes and his own description of himself as an amateur are from the same sentence, which reads "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". This is very different and far more extreme than claiming he wasn't a mass murderer and this rather startling claim has been contradicted by many serious historians. (including one critique from a 17th Century specialist at Cambridge who wrote a comment on Amazon.co.uk who concludes by saying "This is a painfully bad book, and it is tempting to suggest that its main use will be to teach students how not to conduct research, assess evidence or write prose". Hughsheehy 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that other editors above have contested the depiction of Cromwell's actions in Ireland as "genocide". Please stick to the actual point and describe why the reference to a book on 20th century genocides is significant in this regard. I do believe that the description of it as "genocide" is pure POV and make no apology for that. MarkThomas 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Other editors may contest the description. Let them provide citation. The Reilly book is not authoritative just because he's from Drogheda and it is important to refer accurately to what he actually said. The Midlarsky book refers to historical genocides, including Cromwell. I also just added another citation from another reputable historian who describes Cromwell's campaign and settlement as "genocidal". Many older refs don't use the word genocide but clearly characterise the campaign and the policies in terms that fit the definition. Your belief that the description of genocide is POV is not relevant. Only verifiable citation is relevant. Hughsheehy 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see from Hughsheehy's latest edit that he is reluctant to discuss this any further. I therefore propose to apply for the page to be locked and mediation. If no further comments in the next 24 hours and continued edits, I will do this. MarkThomas 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot add further citation and be on the talk page at the same time. I have added clearly referenced and easily found sources that make the characterisation that I have added to the article. I had not intended to have so many refs but - as on other pages - it appears to be necessary. Hughsheehy 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drogheda

By changing the quote from Reilly, we now have a disconnected para ending in the introduction, where on the one hand we have the (over!) referenced statement that Cromwell is traditionally hated in Ireland, a fact that cannot be doubted, and on the other a disconnected reference to Reilly's view that there was no killing of civilians in Drogheda, whereas of course Cromwell is hated for much more than just Drogheda. I propose we separate these. If nobody else is involved in editing this other than Hughsheehy and myself, rather than edit-warring, I propose we seek mediation on it, since it is clearly highly politically and emotionally charged for one of the editors involved. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, interesting that you were recently deleting the refs to how Cromwell was hated, calling them POV, whereas now it "cannot be doubted". Hughsheehy 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted from Reilly accurately. Reilly did not say that Cromwell was not a mass murderer, he said that neither he nor his men ever killed unarmed civilians - which is very different. I am not edit warring. I am adding verifiable citations and referring to them accurately and neutrally. Hughsheehy 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point and anyway can you quote the page number from Reilly that's on - I think you are getting it from here are you? If so, it's a throwaway comment by the author, but I am willing to accept that it's his view. You changed to this quote from the one saying that the belief in Cromwell's genocide was a "fundamental flaw in Irish history" which was more relevant to the "genocide and hate" debate. I believe you did this to try to demean Reilly and confirm your POV that Cromwell was a genocidalist in Ireland, something that it is contested. Snowjobbing references all over it doesn't help. Will you please stop editing and discuss properly? If not, when the page is locked it will need to be reverted back to before your recent edits. MarkThomas 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also the much more measured and objective tone of the historical debate about these atrocities at Cromwellian conquest of Ireland - we need to look at what that article says and incorporate some of it's tone into the introduction of this one. Cromwell was not a genocidalist. MarkThomas 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I accurately quoted what Reilly said. I did nothing more than that. The previous version presented something that he had NOT said. In any case, his "throwaway comment" was apparently the source of your ref as the text that you quote is not (AFAIK) in the actual book, but only in the author's comment. I am not "snowjobbing" references. If the text was not contested there would be no need for multiple references. The text is being contested and I will put in appropriate references, which are from multiple authors and from serious publishing houses. As for the other page, it refers to how the activities of Cromwell and co in Ireland could be described as war crimes. The other page also has one reference to Reilly as the only counterpoint. As for me "discussing properly", I am doing so. Finally, as for "measured and objective", I have said that Cromwell's campaign has been characterised as genocidal or near genocidal and provided reputable refs which say exactly that. Hughsheehy 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What's actually going on now with the refs is that you've thrown loads of references at the part of the sentence about Cromwell being hated in Ireland, a point nobody contests, but we still have 3 difficult-to-check-for-context-and-accuracy references about genocide. One of those three, as I've mentioned before, appears to be from a book about 20th Century genocide. Can you help us out Hughsheehy by repeating the actual sentences from those two where you have not provided them please? Thanks. In the meantime, I am researching alternative views of the alleged genocide, which do not (I have already discovered) just depend on Reilly. I also object to the use of the term "amateur" in that context because he used that as a point against his critics "eg, even an amateur like me has proved you all wrong" and it is being used here in the opposite sense. MarkThomas 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The refs on the campaign are not difficult to check and I already said that the Midlarsky book refers to several historical genocides. As for Reilly, it is his own description of himself. His book has been heavily criticised and that is how he described himself in response to that. If you can find reputable references that say that Cromwell and co's campaign and settlement was not genocidal, fine. I didn't find any.

Again, if the point about Cromwell being hated is one "nobody contests" then why did you delete reference to it from a century old Cromwell biography as being "extremely POV and unencyclopedic" and another from the UK National Archive website with the comment "deliberate and extremely POVist attempt to gain from a spurious "governmental authority" association." Strange that it's suddenly something "nobody contests". YOU contested it and YOU deleted references about it. Now that there are "loads of references" it's suddenly uncontested. I find that strange.

Meantime, I'm putting the text of the references re genocide into the references. It'll take a few minutes. Hughsheehy 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The text of the references are in, plus another reference from a University of Southampton historian that describes the Cromwell campaign for several pages and is pretty unambiguous in the characterisation as genocidal. Of course, I'm sure that somehow it's entirely my fault that he wrote this book. In volume 1 (which I didn't cite) he suggests that Ireland in the 17th century may be one of the first genocides associated with a nation state, although the Canaries in the 15th and Prussia in the 13th offer other examples. Hughsheehy 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early years: 1599–1640

Reference to St Ives in the 4th (final) para should presumably to the town in Cambridgeshire. Can this be fixed please? 195.217.52.130 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reilly as a reference?

Although I'm no expert on 17th century history, it seems that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Reilly version of Cromwell is not reliable. He has been criticised by several historians as unsound, e.g. "A major attempt at rehabilitation was attempted by Tom Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy (London, 1999) but this has been largely rejected by other scholars", which is a comment from John Morrill (a well known historian also quoted on this WP page) in the Canadian Journal of History. The critique on the Amazon.co.uk page, written by a 17th century specialist in Cambridge is even more damning, with "To be blunt, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy owes more to Reilly's often expressed desire to "rehabilitate the memory of Cromwell in Ireland" than it does to any generally accepted rules of historical practice" and "This is a painfully bad book, and it is tempting to suggest that its main use will be to teach students how not to conduct research, assess evidence or write prose" as just a few example from that critique.

There are others too but they're offline right now and I can't get to them. Should this ref be used? Again, I'm not an expert but it seems that concerns about the book should at least somehow be expressed where it is used as a reference. Hughsheehy 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reilly is an amateur historian with no academic qualifications whatever. And it shows in every respect. The man holds no weight in the academic community. There is a reason for that. 89.100.195.42 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Which page in Reilly's book does the quote you included come from Hughsheehy? I refer to your sentence "neither Cromwell or his men ever engaged in the killing of any unarmed civilians throughout his entire nine month campaign" I can't locate this sentence on Google Books. MarkThomas 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas - you know very well where it came from. You referred to it already yourself [1]in a discussion a few days ago and you indicated that you were happy that it reflected the author's views. It seems to come from exactly the same place as your previous quote about the "fundamental flaw in Irish history". It's the Author's review of his own book on Amazon.com and probably many of their affiliates. AFAIK, neither text that you quoted or I quoted is in the book itself, rather in the Author's Note and I believe I already said so. I just quoted it accurately. I'd be perfectly happy to delete the reference entirely if you'd like. As for Google Books, it only has a limited preview of the text, not the whole book. BTW, I didn't use the quote from Reilly about Clonmel where he says (paraphrased) "Cromwell's leniency towards the most obstinate Clonmel garrison" is not (now move to direct quote) "something that would have been expected from the systematic killer of vast amounts of defenceless Irish civilians". (Page 242) because some might read is and say that there's at least a chance that Reilly is being ironic. Reilly isn't my ref. He's yours, but we need to quote from him accurately and fairly, if at all. Hughsheehy 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/i/Talk%7EOliver_Cromwell_10ee.html"