MovieChat Forums > To Kill a King Discussion > Cromwell hero or villian

Cromwell hero or villian


Still a definitive film to be made about this fascinating man and I am still no closer to understanding what sort of man he was as there is so many conflicting views on him.

Some say he was a fanatical tyrant while others seem him as a more just figure who tried to govern in impossible circumstances.

I've even heard his most damning actions-his war in Ireland in which he supposedly slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians, as a myth and his soldering was not cruel by the standards of the time.

All I that can be said for certain was that as one of the first parliaments to take power from an absolutist monarch it was an act of supreme importance in European history.

Any comments that may add to my sketchy knowledge of Cromwell would be greatly appreciated.

reply

Sadly you're spot on about Cromwell's activities in Ireland being normal for the 17th century. Rules of engagement meant that when a besieged town held out against its would-be invaders (like Drogheda did) and caused casualties (through starvation or disease), refusing peace-terms, if the enemy made a breach and invaded then everyone (civilian or not) was a viable target.

I think the best book about him is Antonia Fraser's *Cromwell Our Chief Of Men* (1973). Fraser was a Catholic, and so has reasons to be hostile to him, but she gives a good balanced portrait of him. Apart from anything else it gives the lie to *To Kill A King*'s saying that he neglected to keep in contact with his family while fighting, as he wrote them letters on a daily basis.

reply

Cromwell's actions at Drogheda were ruthless, certainly, but there is no evidence of mass civilian casualties. The great majority of the deaths were soldiers, most of the civilians being what might be termed 'collateral damage'. For example, he burned a church where civilians were taking refuge because it was being used by Royalist marksmen. Nor was the destruction of Drogheda some sort of anti-Catholic or anti-Irish 'crusade' - the bulk of the garrison were Protestant Englishmen. There was another massacre at Wexford, but in that case the troops stormed the city without orders, and went on the rampage when they discovered evidence of Catholic atrocities. People remember these massacres because they were exagerrated by mythologised by post Civil War Catholic propagandists. What they often forget is that - partly thanks to the shock factor of Drogheda and Wexford - Cromwell conducted a further twenty six sieges in Ireland over nine months he was there, and his troops behaved impeccably. In fact, overall Cromwell behaved a lot better in Ireland than many previous or later English commanders.

Cromwell was really a better soldier than politician, which was why his rule came to be seen as a tyranny. It is worth noting that the root cause of his poor relationship with the various Protectorate Parliaments was religion. Parliament, dominated by deeply conservative Presbyterians, constantly thwarted Cromwell's liberal (by the standards of the day) religious reforms. He was a man with little interest in the 'forms' of worship, caring more about someone's personal relationship with Christ. To that end he wanted to extend tolerance to all Christian demoninations, with the exception of High Anglicanism (regarded as a Royalist church) and Roman Catholicism (still the great satan of the Protestant world). Even Catholics, however, were allowed an unofficial tolerance, permitted to attend Mass providing that they did it in embassy chapels. Quite a cunning move, really - the Mass was outlawed in England, but of course embassies were technically part of the country which they represented! There is even a surviving letter from Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, the chief minister of France, discussing the possibility of extending formal toleration to Roman Catholics in England.

Cromwell's big problem was that they abolished the monarchy without any real idea of what to do instead, so his rule saw a range of experiments, of which the infamous 'Rule of the Major Generals' was just one short-lived, inneffectual attempt. Ultimately he ended up governing by force of personality alone, which is why the Protectorate collapsed after his death.

Incidentally, it's wrong to consider the Protectorate to be a true republic. Cromwell believed at heart that monarchy was the divinely approved manner of government (though that did not, of course, mean that monarchs were answerable to God alone as Charles I believed). Consequently the Protectorate was as close to a monarchy as one could get without actually being one, not through Cromwell's ambition but because he saw it as best for the nation.

He was certainly no democrate as we would understand it, and was proud of the fact that he was a member of the gentry (not, as 'To Kill a King' would have you believe, working class). He was opposed to universal manhood sufferage; he did, however, believe in a constitutional monarchy with a nation govered by a representative elected Parliament (even if it was only representative of those with sufficient status to vote).

To me he is, on balance, a hero.

reply

He is neither a hero or a villain. I do, however, feel that he learns more towards villainy than heroism.

Regards,
The Count

The Apple Scruffs Corps, 07

"Imagine"

reply

The history of Cromwell's involvement in Ireland will be rewritten an reinterpreted as often as people wish to do so.
The question on many Irish lips would be what was the boot of this Englishman doing on Irish soil and leading an army in anger ?

Many Irish people simply view him as an English devil.

reply

I agree that the history and involvement of these characters will be rewritten and reinterpreted as time passes.

In our society today, what is viewed as "politically correct" must certainly influence peoples' feelings toward Cromwell and Fairfax, and their actions.

It does seem that Cromwell was quite driven (in the movie at least) by eliminating some sort of person demons. When you are not a popular leader (and do not know how to lead), I suppose the argument can be made that becoming paranoid and heavy handed might be expected. Not saying at all that his actions (as based in the movie) were correct - far from it!

While I admire his ideals of a man's freedom, and a man being his own master, it is sad that the implementation of such ideals took on such drastic actions.

I wonder - has Cromwell's "reputation" been changed by this movie to any degree? Is he seen as more of a tyrant or unbalanced now than previously? I hope everyone is at least skeptical of the historical accuracy of this movie, and others. Hollywood is not known to remain true to history very often, IMHO.

reply

I don't accept this film's depiction of Cromwell. I like Tim Roth but his Cromwell was that of a detestable rat-like sadistic hothead, obseqiously fawning over Fairfax. In reality Cromwell was a far more complex character than this film's wooden depiction.

reply

[deleted]

For me personally he was a little of both, which is what makes great men.
Villain for his Irish campaigns, but forever a hero to me for having the balls to rid this country of the parasitic monarchy which still bleed us dry to this very day. Talk about an outdated concept. He sussed this out over 300 years ago!!!!

"Kunta Kinte... yabba dabba dabba doo"

reply

[deleted]

Here we have a perfect illustration of a typical English attitude towards the Irish:
The Micks are a great braying mob of ignorant imbeciles with no capacity to form their own individual opinions on the events of history.
They've been misled and duped by evil, crazed Irish Nationalist fanatics and the insidious Romish Church into believing they suffered under English rule and had just cause to resent and oppose it.
In reality - as all sensible, intelligent, free-thinking (English) people know - this is all lies.
Fair enough, there was some "unpleasantness" for the Micks at times as England attempted to maintain order but "that was the norm at the time".
The English were, in fact, very tolerant and patient in their rule of the savage, child-like Paddies and had another foreign power managed to get control of Mickland then they really would have had something to complain about!!!

Perhaps the day will come when we daft Micks will come to our senses, recognise our error and beg, on bended knee, the Master-Race to re-take control of our lives.
It might take a while though - we Micks being so thick and all :)


-Níl aon scáileán mar do scáileán féin.-

reply

[deleted]

After reading many of these comments, especially those by robinbanks911, I feel compelled to respond to the utterly false assertions that while campaigning in Ireland Cromwell's egregious actions against the Irish People are mere confections of extreme and/or hyperbolic Irish Nationalists. In fact, they are so patenly false as to reduce the entire discussion to the realm of the absurd. Any scholar, British or otherwise, or anyone who has ever studied this period with any degree of seriousness (my Masters Thesis was on the Ulster Plantation of Ireland under James I) is aware of the basic facts concerning the actions conducted in Ireland by Cromwell. It is also well known by any honest student or scholar that the Irish were subjected to some of the worst discriminatory actions in the history of any European population. This cruel treatment didn't begin or end with Cromwell, though his actions do stand out in bold relief since he was so adamant to suppress the Irish and, yes, this was significantly due to their being Catholic during his brief tenure as Lord Protector. Offensive, ignorant and insulting characterizations such as those expressed by this commentator, e.g., Plastic Paddies and other implicit references to illiterate, inferior people, merely serve to illustrate the enduring prejudice of such people born by demonstrable ignorance. Such racist and insulting comments as these can be equaled by southern racists in the years following the American Civil War. Incredible as it seems, such ignorance still persists in the 21st Century. While the British people of today bear little responsibility for the horrors inflicted on the people of Ireland, the British Government from the 17th through the early 20th Century certainly do. Consult any library for voluminous references and well documented instances of three hundred years of inexcusable discrimination. At one point in the 17th Century, a bounty in Connaught, the western part of Ireland, was levied on wolves...the same bounty was levied on Catholic priests. Not confected, not rumor, not hyperbole, documented fact. Ireland's population was subject to the cruelest discrimination of all, prohibition to practice their religion openly for over 200 years...a fact not known by most people. Irish children were denied a basic education for an equal number of years, similar to what the southern plantation owners imposed on black slaves. Anyone can look this fact up, simply Google the word Hedge Row School and read how children came to the edge of the road and were educated by roving priests and others. Any enlightened people who refuse education to an occupied population demonstrates the most uncivil behavior possible. Remember, it was the Irish scholar monks who saved preserved much of Christian Civilization's intellectual and religious heritage during the dark, barbaric ages. Yes, these were all overturned, but not after decades upon decades of pressure from inside and outside Ireland. Anyone want to verify if others suffered under English rule...just ask the Scots, Welsh, Indians. Talk about confected history, ever hear of the so-called Black Hole of Calcutta, the scene of atrocities against British citizens in India that every school child learned about...until the British finally admitted it was totally false and even removed the "monuments" in India after documentation became so overwhelming that it became an embarrassment to the British Government...and this was in the 20th Century. As I stated, the present British Government bears no responsibility for these atrocious actions, but honest historians all admit they existed and the unimpeachable, historical facts are there for anyone to see in hundreds of dissertations, theses, articles and books. It's time anyone who employes ignorant characterizations of a people, with no knowledge of any underlying facts, and resorts to both implicit and explicit denigrations of events and persons, realizes that this is the 21 Century. We either move forward with charity and intelligence or, we turn things over to the Orcks.

reply

[deleted]

Cromwell was an ordinary puritan. Convinced everything he did was right, and that his was the only way. Thus 20 years before the Civil Wat the Pilgrim Fathers had gone to New World to escape the multiplicity of denominations in England and set up a purely Puritan state, with no other religions. Even to the point of hanging peple simply because they are Quaker. Cromwell showed this mindset in his treatment of Ireland and others who did not conform.

reply