Who do you think was worse?

flogen

A list of the 10 Worst Historical Britons has been complied by the BBC History Magazine, with one person for each century of the last 1000 years.

The selection for 1600 - 1700 is Titus Oates, a man who manipulated his position in order to round up and imprison Jesuits in the UK for a fictional assassination attempt on the King.
I was interested in reading the list to see if Oliver Cromwell would be named. Irish people know just how much of an animal this guy was, as do the Scots and as should supporters of the British Monarchy.
It's odd to me that the man who destroyed something the English seem to hold so dear is often held in extremely high regard. Can anyone else explain this? He was nothing more than a tyranicall dictactor with a sickening hatred for Irish Catholics.

Aedh Baclamh

Yes fascism was the most evil thing during the 20th century :rolleyes:

Typical.


Oh and I wouldn't pay too much notice to this sort of thing.

PHB

Some of those selections are absolute bull****.

Oates??
King John??
Beckett??

While they might have been bad people, although I'm a fan of King John, but jesus christ, talk about classical english historiographical bull****.
All those selections are trying to recreate the old mode of english history where all of it can be seen as a progression, while anyone going against it is quite clearly the worst britain.
The funniest one is without a doubt Mosley, an utterly irrelvent figure in british history

Cromwell btw is a legend! Read up on him, if you try remove your hatred you have for him, the guy was a pretty cool person, except for everything he did in the colonies, who weren't real people to him

Capt'n Midnight

1900 to 2000: Oswald Mosley (1896-1980)
Storm in a teacup.
I'd nominate Bomber Harris, who continued despite having had first hand experiance of how Londoners coped with the Blitz.

1800 to 1900: Jack the Ripper
Killed 4 people, but did it within half a mile of posh areas and so is remembered. Much worse than any of the Slavers or imperialists.

1700 to 1800: Duke of Cumberland (1721-1765)

1600 to 1700: Titus Oates (1649-1705)

1500 to 1600: Sir Richard Rich (Lord Rich of Leighs) (1496/7-1567)

1400 to 1500: Thomas Arundel (1353-1414)

1300 to 1400: Hugh Despenser (The Younger)(died 1326)

1200 to 1300: King John(1167-1216)
His legacy though unintentional was the magna carta
yet they idolise Richard the Lionheart who did more damage to the country

Richard has been criticised for doing little for England, siphoning the kingdom's resources by appointing Jewish moneylenders to support his journeys away on Crusade in the Holy Land. Indeed, he spent only six months of his ten year reign in England, claiming it was "cold and always raining." During the period when he was raising funds for his Crusade, Richard was heard to declare, "If I could have found a buyer I would have sold London itself."

1100 to 1200: Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury(c.1120-1170)
AKA. Saint Thomas a Becket
not a plesant bloke by all accounts but not exactly a laid back era either.

1000 to 1100: Eadric Streona(died 1017)
William the Conquer just possibly had a more negative impact on the lifestyle of the 80% of the population who survived the invasion and subsequent pacification and famines.

Fenian

"Cromwell btw is a legend! Read up on him, if you try remove your hatred you have for him, the guy was a pretty cool person, except for everything he did in the colonies, who weren't real people to him".

You sicken me, thats like saying Hitler was grand because he thought Jews were sub-human. Whatever good qualities Cromwell had are totally over shadowed and irrelevant compared to his treatment of the Irish people.

mike65

What Cromwell did or did'nt do to poeple in another country 400 hundred years ago is hardly going to weigh heavily on the English now.

He is looked upon with some regard cos he was also the first man to usurp the role of the Monarchy and make "Britain" a republic, democracy might have come later without Cromwell. He also belived in freedom to practice religion with the exception of Catholics, Jews found freedom in Cromwells England they would never have got here for example.

Still this is an Irish message board so the good stuff gets overlooked.

Mike.

Fenian

My reaction, I admit, was knee jerk.

This is Boards.ie, not Boards.co.uk, as an Irishman I refuse to look upon Cromwell as "a legend". He may of given Jews and others religous freedom, but on the other hand he was responsible for the death's of thousands of our country men and women.

In my opinion, any Irishman or woman who looks upon Cormwell as someone who should be revered is someone who is seriously disillusioned.

Aedh Baclamh

Cromwell gave religous freedom to the Jews - That's some of the criteria you give for him being a 'legend'? Are you actually serious?

mike65

Not even sure what you mean by that comment, I did'nt proclaim Cromwell a legend. I'm agnostic on the man and his legacy.

Mike.

Aedh Baclamh

Sorry, thought PHB was the one who said it, apologies.

Amazotheamazing

Fenian wrote:

My reaction, I admit, was knee jerk.

This is Boards.ie, not Boards.co.uk, as an Irishman I refuse to look upon Cromwell as "a legend". He may of given Jews and others religous freedom, but on the other hand he was responsible for the death's of thousands of our country men and women.
In my opinion, any Irishman or woman who looks upon Cormwell as someone who should be revered is someone who is seriously disillusioned.

Just like so many others then I guess. Some would call the IRA legends, some would call them murderers, same is true of course for any of the loyalist groups, history isn't clear-cut, Cromwell had some good attributes, as well as being a vicious killer.

Laguna

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Some would call the IRA legends, some would call them murderers

You took the words out of my mouth...

Fenian

Well, you could say the same for the IRB, United Irishmen, Peep o day boys, white boys, Yeomenry etc.

If I was an English man and my family were killed by the IRA, of course I would feel resentment towards them. The fact of the matter is, I am not an Englishman, I'm an Irishman, and it was my ancestors massacred by Cromwell, yours aswell if your Irish. So I refuse to look kindly at Cromwell. Politics has nothing to do with it. Heritage and history has everything to do with it.

Amazotheamazing

Isn't the whole point that's it's an English list of people?

Fenian

My first comment had nothing to do with the list, it had to do with Cromwell being referred to as "a legand". My reaction would of been the same if he had referred to Wlliam Martin Murphy as "a legend".

LovelyHurling

Fenian wrote:

This is Boards.ie, not Boards.co.uk, as an Irishman I refuse to look upon Cromwell as "a legend". He may of given Jews and others religous freedom, but on the other hand he was responsible for the death's of thousands of our country men and women.

In my opinion, any Irishman or woman who looks upon Cormwell as someone who should be revered is someone who is seriously disillusioned.

Whats that got to do with you as an individual? Its got nothing more to do with you than me as an Ulsterman or Johnny Ipswich as an Englishman.... why must all of the people of one country think in the same way, as you seem to suggest? Everybody is individual and has their own interpretations of history and historical men.

Personally I feel that many of Cromwells actions were very positive. Every murder is morally wrong but Id also question that "thousands" figure.

PHB

I would still call Cromwell a legend.
It's all about how much you believe that society reflects an individual. Just like I'd call Pericles a legend, despite him owning slaves and treating them badly, much like how I'm willing to accept Washington as a legend for the same reason.
Irish people of all people should know how little the English viewed other nations in the past, and should be able to understand how their society influenced them.

Its acceptable to call him a legend, while at the same time acknowledging that he was killed thousands of irish people. Its about judging people, while at the same time trying to understand the society that they lived in.

Aedh Baclamh

Its acceptable to call him a legend, while at the same time acknowledging that he was killed thousands of irish people.

It's either in the blood or not, and quite clearly, it's not in yours.

Fenian

" Everybody is individual and has their own interpretations of history and historical men."

That is quite true, some people today view Hitler as a great man, and as you suggest, viewing despicable people with affection is all well and good, but as long as you do it as an individual?



"Its about judging people, while at the same time trying to understand the society that they lived in."

I do not judge people by socities standards, I judge them by my own standards.
If you want to look upon Cromwell as a legend thats fine. You have obviously read up about him and liked something about him that you've read. For me, to look upon a man as vile and cruel as Cromwell is something I'm not capable of.

When I think of Cromwell I dont think of religious freedom, or his positive qaulities, I think of slaughter, boiling pitch cappings and the cat o' nine tails.

PHB

It's either in the blood or not, and quite clearly, it's not in yours.

I'm an irishman, it's in my blood. Irish doesn't mean we all have the same ideas.

---

That is quite true, some people today view Hitler as a great man, and as you suggest, viewing despicable people with affection is all well and good, but as long as you do it as an individual?

No, I havn't made myself clear. There is a difference between juding someone, and judging an entire society.

When I think of Cromwell I dont think of religious freedom, or his positive qaulities, I think of slaughter, boiling pitch cappings and the cat o' nine tails.

Yeh, I know, its hard to look past the slaughter. However when I see Cromwell, I see his positive qualities, and I see his religous freedom. I also see him inside the society he lived in, which perpetuated the notions of inhumanity towards people from other countries. He is trapped by his society, and I've no doubt that if he lived in society today, he would not have had the same opinion of people from other countries.
However he did, and for that he is a despicable human being. But so are the rest of the entire society he lived with.

If you ever get a chance, read a book called the Historians Craft by Marc Bloch. It will explain to you infinitly better than I can, why its important to try and understand the society that people live in, before you judge them.

LovelyHurling

Fenian wrote:

That is quite true, some people today view Hitler as a great man, and as you suggest, viewing despicable people with affection is all well and good, but as long as you do it as an individual?

I do not judge people by socities standards, I judge them by my own standards.
If you want to look upon Cromwell as a legend thats fine.

Personally I wouldnt view Cromwell as a legend in the light of his foregn 'policy', however George W Bush is responsible for more death than Cromwell, and he has immense support. You have to look at the whole entire Cromwell, not just his darkest side. To appreciate his positive qualities and achievments you actually have to liberate yourself from petty small minded one way primary school history teaching induced thinking, to realize that history cannot be defined in sentances, paragraphs and modern political landscapes and ideologies.
You can't compare Cromwell to a brute like Hitler because while both were coldhearted and reckless in their actions, just like Mosely and Oates and all the others on that list, Cromwell had more to him than they had. His legacy is broader than the actions by which many Irish people tend to define him.

I mean its a question of where do you draw the line... Michael Collins was a murderer too and yet most wouldn't refer to him as an evil man. It's not only about how many people you've killed, you have to consider the actions of a historical figure in their entirity.

Tar.Aldarion

flogen wrote:

A list of the 10 Worst Historical Britons has been complied by the BBC History Magazine, with one person for each century of the last 1000 years.

The selection for 1600 - 1700 is Titus Oates, a man who manipulated his position in order to round up and imprison Jesuits in the UK for a fictional assassination attempt on the King.
I was interested in reading the list to see if Oliver Cromwell would be named. Irish people know just how much of an animal this guy was, as do the Scots and as should supporters of the British Monarchy.
It's odd to me that the man who destroyed something the English seem to hold so dear is often held in extremely high regard. Can anyone else explain this? He was nothing more than a tyranicall dictactor with a sickening hatred for Irish Catholics.

Simple really, In Britain they are not told the bad stuff about him when they are taught, it leaves out the tyranny. He is built up to be a hero whereas when you show a british person what he did, they are damn shocked.


PHB, I get what you are saying. Society and how people are brought up to not believe something is wrong. The hardest thing for people to change is what is common belief and custom.
In my mind, anybody who kills an animal is a murderer, if the majority of peoples opinions changed in the future to hold my belief most people nowadays would be murdering bastards like how people regard cromwell.
That said. The man still was an evil S.O.B, circumstance or not. If everybody does it it is not an excuse but people can't judge him truly by todays standards as you would not judge the greek philosophers for having slaves and being inhuman.

LovelyHurling

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Simple really, In Britain they are not told the bad stuff about him when they are taught, it leaves out the tyranny. He is built up to be a hero whereas when you show a british person what he did, they are damn shocked.

Thats a very one sided argument, a lot of people in ireland or at least in the south dont know anything about Cromwells positives as this thread has shown. I think the lesson is that you should never let your primary school/ history teachers make up your mind for you as regards men of history. BTW the school I went to we learned about Cromwell in the colonies havent read anything since that has "shocked" me...

SpitfireIV

LovelyHurling wrote:

a lot of people in ireland or at least in the south dont know anything about Cromwells positives as this thread has shown.

Lovelyhurling,

I think the fact that the man was regarded as a murderer, villian and a tyrant on these shores somewhat overshadows his 'posistives' and I think as Irish people we have the option and reserve the right of hating the man. Sure he may have been a great man on his own island, but not here unfortunately, and thus has gone down in history for his actions.

But by hating the man doesnt mean we are ignorant to history or being biased, its our own opinion, these days we learn the facts of history, not the folklore or tales, everything is on the table for us to see, its not as if from early days we are being pumped full of hatred for our England invaders, we make our own minds up.

One mans meat is another mans poison, as the saying goes. I personally wouldnt give Cromwell a second thought, he wasnt a good man by any standards, and just because it was back in the 1600's doesnt excuse his reign of terror, not by any measure.

All the best,

CroppyBoy1798

LovelyHurling

Agree with you totally on that, I dont think Cromwell was a hero in every way I just wanted to refute the point that British people, regardless of their opinions on the man, aren't taught about Cromell's actions in the colonies which is a bit inaccurate.

Aedh Baclamh

You can't compare Cromwell to a brute like Hitler because while both were coldhearted and reckless in their actions, just like Mosely and Oates and all the others on that list, Cromwell had more to him than they had. His legacy is broader than the actions by which many Irish people tend to define him.

I would think Hitler achieved a lot more in much more difficult circumstances?

LovelyHurling

Aedh Baclamh wrote:

I would think Hitler achieved a lot more in much more difficult circumstances?

Thats your opinion, thats fine. Taking their acts of murder out of the picture I cant say i could agree... what lasting benefit did Hitler give to the Germans apart from the Volkwagon? But its really a question of who was the lesser dumbass lets not discuss the merits of either.

Aedh Baclamh

There was a much greater lasting benefit than a car.

PHB

The differences between say Hitler and Cromwell is that while Cromwell acted upon society's prejudice, Hitler created his societies prejudice, or at least harnessed an underlying one for political gain.

Tar.Aldarion

LovelyHurling wrote:

BTW the school I went to we learned about Cromwell in the colonies havent read anything since that has "shocked" me...

The fact that he was a murderer, the way he committed the murders etc seem to shock some people that loved him and had never heard a bad word about him, obviously not everybody is going to be shocked by that. Depends if you read up on yourself and what you were taught.
I by no means hate old Ironsides, he is just some dead guy to me but by reading about him he seemed a less than good man.

LovelyHurling

The fact that he was a murderer, the way he committed the murders etc seem to shock some people that loved him and had never heard a bad word about him, obviously not everybody is going to be shocked by that

Its interesting how seemingly, at least historically, antagonistic groups in Irelands social framework seem to curse Cromwell as that cruel bad man of the past. Catholics are taught of him as a persecuter of the Catholics and Protestants are taught of him as a persecutor of the Protestants. He persecuted the poor and he persecuted the rich, men of no religion, and men of deep faith.
Looking at it objectively, Cromwell is remembered for two events - Drogheda and Wexford. The vast majority of those he killed in Drogheda were old royalist Protestants, who unfortunately many people who name themselves as Irish people would not like to identify themselves with.

The other event - Wexford - where Catholics were killed is well documented and not disputed, to have occured contrary to Cromwell's orders!

Given that, it doesn't make any sense at all for people who went to school outside of The south or in England not to have learned about Cromwell, and what is even more odd is the exaggeration of the atrocities he certainly did commit in Ireland during his time here. So there are no excuses for anyone 'British' to have never heard a bad word about Cromwell unless they weren't listening in history classes.