MY HERO
-
bobjewell87 — 19 years ago(April 12, 2006 11:15 AM)
good point made there alan (about cromwell not being so bad afterall)
it is somewhat of a common misconception that he's this evil person, i liked how the film portrayed both him and charles and thoroughly enjoyed the film itself. -
chrismahon2005 — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 04:08 PM)
Im of irish background myself,and also a military history fan,so ive always kinda of had a lot of respect for the guy,even though i know full well what he did was pretty heavy.
But that was what it was like those days,and he did i believe offer terms to the towns before he took them,by the laws of war in those days,once that offer is turned down,then the citys can be sacked by the troops involved,and take any plunder they can find.
But of course they probaly went way over the top,many accounts tell of them slaughtering nuns,priests etc in the town square,while none of the officers at first tried to stop them.
But even alexander,napoleon,wellington had there bad moments and there troops many times ran amok,so i guess it happens in all periods of warfare,even to the so called greats. -
bsrain — 19 years ago(June 25, 2006 01:24 PM)
Well, George Washington was a hardass too. Don't believe me? Just check this out:
http://members.aol.com/ChipCooper/george.html
By the way, what do you British think of the whole Cromwell/Charles I incident these days? In school, do they teach you that Cromwell was the bad guy and Chuck I was just an enlightened ruler who got a bum deal from some uppity Protestants? Or is it vice versa, like Cromwell was a man before his time who was laying the groundwork for a more democratic England? I would think that after the reinstatement of the monarchy, they would've had a little revisionist history written casting Cromwell in a bad light, being that they dug him up, cut his head off, and put it on a pike for years and years. Talk about overkill.
/curious Yank -
Koncorde — 19 years ago(July 01, 2006 04:04 PM)
Education is rather neutral from what I remember (I was a teacher for a short while but it wasn't my subject). Though to be honest it's not actually particularly focused upon by our education system, merely glossed over along with the rest of our couple of thousand year history+europe+world. Usually though anyone who gets their head chopped off does so because they're a "bad man", whereas the only 'school' fact I remember about Cromwell was that his brain reputedly weighed several pounds (the average being 1.4lb or something).
Revisionists can't do much more to Cromwell to be honest. He was the first leader to say "warts 'n all" and led a number of very well documented campaigns. At no point did he 'dress up' how he was, and fought vigorously against those who would bring him down - which is why the massacres and similar are patently out of character.
The "British" view overall is that he was a hero to one and all, the first 'low' ruler (i.e. a man of the people). It's unlikely that even with Charles II coming back to the throne that he could have put any weight into having history amended (given he was little more than a puppet for the Lords etc) and with such a wealth of information.
The Irish view (originally founded and based upon 'Royalist' propoganda, since reinforced through the occupation and continued troubles) is to the contrary obviously. -
Koncorde — 19 years ago(August 26, 2006 02:16 PM)
I was using "Occupation" as the Royalist/Irish term. It's the one several people I know use when referring to the northern counties in order to justify their support for 'civil disobedience' and the IRA's resistance.
-
sculston — 19 years ago(August 04, 2006 10:42 PM)
If you are still curious, then a recent book by Geoffery Robertson might be of interest, check out "The Tyranicide Brief"
I'm a Brit who was brought up on the old 'Cromwell bad, Charles1/Restoration good' idea. This book changed my thinking; enjoy.