>btfos the dutch in battle
>expands englands colonial empire in the carribean leading to 200+ years of english naval supremacy
>bans witch burning in scotland
>establishes reigious tolerance and stops the perseuction of catholics in britain and maryland
>makes the english army feared with the english troops fighting in the battle of the dunes respected
Why is he hated again?
He didn't ban christmas, parliament did, and his actions in ireland were justified by the standards of the 17th century.

> “At dinner we talked much of Cromwell; all saying he was a brave fellow, and did owe his crown he got to himself as much as any man that ever got one.” - Samuel Pepys (1666)

> “It is strange how every body do now-a-days reflect upon Oliver, and commend him, what brave things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him; while here a prince, come in with all the love of his people, hath lost all so soon.” - Samuel Pepys (1667)

> L&M note the Medway disaster had heightened Cromwell's posthumous reputation, although none of this admiration was allowed to appear in print. Sobière in 1664 had reported that the coffee-house talk consisted of complaints about taxes, and regrets that the achievements of Cromwell were glories now gone. Megalotti remarked in almost the same terms in 1669 that people 'cannot refrain from odiously comparing the present government with the late one of Cromwell, magnifying the power of the fleets, the alliances, and the reputation of their nation in those times, with many other reflections of like nature...'.

>Robert Blake (27 September 1598 – 7 August 1657) was an English naval officer who served as general at sea and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports from 1656 to 1657. Blake served under Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War and Anglo-Spanish War, and as the commanding Admiral of the State's Navy during the First Anglo-Dutch War. Blake is recognized as the "chief founder of England's naval supremacy", a dominance subsequently inherited by the British Royal Navy well into the early 20th century.[2][3] Despite this, due to deliberate attempts to expunge the Parliamentarians from historical records following the Stuart Restoration, Blake's achievements tend to remain relatively unrecognized.[1][4] Blake's successes, however, are considered to have "never been excelled, not even by Nelson" according to one biographer,[5] while Blake is often compared with Nelson by others.
Cromwell literally established england's naval supremacy with men like robert blake

Based and Oliver-pilled

>>17863155 (OP)
>his actions in ireland were justified by the standards of the 17th century
Not even all of his own commanders in Ireland would agree-but they were referring to the wider campaign, not him specifically. Cromwell fucked off before a lot of the worst shit in Ireland happened.

However the reason he is hated in Ireland specifically is because the Cromwellian Conquest was immediately followed by the imposition of the Protestant society that brutalised and oppressed Irish Catholics for the next century and a half. Land confiscations, mass killings, sending people to the colonies, suppression of church, killing of priests, etc-that is why he's hated. Remember; the thing the 1641 plotters wanted as the Graces (already negotiated and agreed to) which was NOT a reversal of the plantations/colonies, but simply the allowance for the remaining Catholic nobility to be treated not as lesser.

Lots of people admire Cromwell's accomplishments-and nobody should make any mistake, he was an incredibly talented man-but to question *why* he's hated in Ireland says more about one's own ignorance/agenda than anything else.

>>17863684
(cont) while I am familiar with the Irish element of this period, I am extremely curious about the New Model Army specifically.

Why was it so good? Any book recommendations? I assume it likely comes down to superior training, but I am very fascinated by it. Any suggestions welcome.

>>17863155 (OP)
>establishes reigious tolerance
>Oliver Cromwell
>Religious Tolerance
If you're going to try to start a troll thread OP you've got to keep the retardation believable. Do better next time.

>>17863155 (OP)
Bongs love their kangs just like how Africans love their chiefs and wizards.

>>17863766
Retard detected
Cromwell established religious tolerance and ended persecution of catholics.
He wasn't le puritan he was an independent.
>>17863684
>elizabeth conquers ireland, kills irish people, takes their land
>nobody cares, people praise elizabeth
>cromwell conquers ireland, kills irish people, takes their land
>everybody hates it for him, irish literally turn him into a boogeyman figure
Cromwell was more merciful to the irish than elizabeth was but for some reason cromwell is villified and elizabeth is praised
Walter raleigh and francis drake slaughtered innocents at rathlin island and nobody cares yet when cromwell slaughters drogheda suddenly he's le evil

>>17863900
>American education moment

>17863766
>17863976
Samefagging retard alert
You think Cromwell is ever mentioned in the US you fucktard?

>>17863900
>elizabeth conquers ireland, kills irish people, takes their land
>nobody cares

Elizabeth's war with Ireland lead to the Nine Years War, probably one of the largest and most significant Anglo-Irish conquests in history. It opened a new front in the Anglo-Spanish War, and England only very, very, very narrowly won. They were on the brink of complete collapse.
>cromwell was more merciful
Elizabeth pardoned many of the Irish that brought her Kingdom in Ireland to the brink of collapse, believing they would be vital in the administration of an expanded realm in Ireland.

Cromwell gave them the Cromwellian settlement, and imposed punitive measures against the wider Irish populiaton.

>>17864114
>Elizabeth's war with Ireland lead to the Nine Years War, probably one of the largest and most significant Anglo-Irish conquests in history. It opened a new front in the Anglo-Spanish War, and England only very, very, very narrowly won. They were on the brink of complete collapse.
Do you think people mention ireland and the nine years war when people talk about elizabeth?
No it's all golden age and shakespeare
For some reason when cromwell is mentioned the first thing everyone speaks of is his conquest of ireland yet nobody cares about elizabeth doing it

>>17863766
Absolutely destroyed what are you talking about little brother

>>17863684
>>his actions in ireland were justified by the standards of the 17th century
It should certainly be possible to note how the brutality of his campaigns had ample precedent not just in Ireland but in contemporary Europe, see the thirty years war, or even how the deliberate (and by modern standards quite appalling) use of starvation to break resistance has roots in Roman treatises on warfare, in order to add context without actually trying to justify said atrocities. Unfortunately that would not be in the spirit of this board so instead you have to shill for every historical figure you're a fan of and deny all their wrongdoings because nuance is for cowards.

>>17864167
>Do you think people mention ireland and the nine years war when people talk about elizabeth?
>No it's all golden age and shakespeare
I can't help but think this view of the Elizabethan era as being a golden age arose in order to diminish the Stuart dynasty. After if any period deserves the title of "golden age" it would be the Jacobean period or even the period of Personal rule. Everyone likes to shit on Charles I and the so-called eleven years tyranny but the truth is the country itself prospered during that time, it was the most tax-free decade in english history at a time when most of Europe was being taxed into oblivion because of the thirty years war.

>>17864167
>guys it isn't trending on twitter
>therefore it simply does not matter
Elizabeth herself avoids most criticism because she didn't really "win."

The 16th Century saw England's power in Ireland wane until the mid 1530s, and political reforms to try and maintain an English sphere of influence was used by many Gaels to consolidate their power. The reason the same animosity doesn't exist for that period is because a lot of it was quite positive for Ireland in the sense that it was terrible for England.

The main greivance was the Plantations, which you "hear about" constantly. When Elizabeth I is mentioned, it's
>struggling to conquer Ireland
>nearly losing Ireland in a war
>barely winning, then dying

It was James I who then barred Catholics from public office following the gunpowder plot. Elizabeth I isn't spoken amount in the same light as Cromwell because she almost lost the entire island, kek.

>>17864209
Few Irish historians would disgaree with that, but there were indeed examples of Cromwellian commanders commenting on the fact that they believed a potentiall unnecessary or unusual amount of violence had occured.

Not enough to derail the whole thing, but anyone who says that his campaign was uniquely horrible or completely typical is a bit off.

>>17863155 (OP)
Largely because of restoration-era propaganda. Same reason you know Nelson but you don't know who Blake is.

Others view him as a military dictator who dissolved Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector with authoritarian powers.

He's hated because he's an imperialist. He cuts down men in his country's name and gets hard because of it.

>>17864721
some say we must return to that time, but me not think for certain

>>17864291
>Elizabeth herself avoids most criticism because she didn't really "win."
We're talking about what the average person thinks of when they hear the names elizabeth and cromwell
only people interested in irish history care about what elizabeth did in ireland, almost everyone else cares about le golden age and francis drake and shakespeare.
meanwhile when cromwell is mentioned the first thing that invariably comes up is his conquest in ireland, and nobody mentions his conquests of jamaica, his war with spain, his religious tolerance, etc.
Cromwell's actions were justified in that he saw them as revenge for the exaggerated 40,000 protestants massacred by the irish. elizabeth's troops had no such justification.
>Elizabeth I isn't spoken amount in the same light as Cromwell because she almost lost the entire island
Firstly, she won.
Secondly, her actions were worse than cromwell's
Name something cromwell did that equals to what norreys did on rathlin island.
You can't

>>17864227
The view of the Elizabethan area as a golden age began at the start of Jame's reign. There were plenty of people who didn't like James's peaceful, concilliatory policies with spain, his excecution of Walter Raleigh, etc. See Drayton's writing.

>>17865416
>Name something cromwell did that equals to what norreys did on rathlin island.
>You can't

The massacre of civilians at the siege of Drogheda and sack of Wexford.

>>17863155 (OP)
>Why is he hated again
Your post notably failed to mention the massacres in Ireland.

He banned theater. That puts him on the wrong side of history as far as im concerned.

>>17865475
and look how gay the world has become with theatre

>>17865500
You have to be 18 or older to post here

>>17865500
That 1950's """ideal""" you think you've lost is literally an ad you retarded zoomer
You also still wouldn't be able to sneed. The Stacy's of yesteryear wouldn't want anything to do with you anymore than they do now

>>17865416
>We're talking about what the average person thinks of when they hear the names elizabeth and cromwell
Right. When people hear "Elizabeth" they do not really get angry because Elizabeth is not associated with widespread conquest-because she attempted diplomacy with the Irish Gaels and even brought some of them up in her Court to act as administrators.

When people think of Cromwell, they think of the ruthless and successful conquest of Ireland.
>his religious tolerance
I think the Catholics in Ireland would disagree with that, kek.
>justified because he saw them as revenge
The massacres in question occured in both directions, and were caused in the aftermath of the failed 1641 plot-which was to secure the Graces, aka an end to ongoing perseuction of Catholics.

>firstly, she won
"She" didn't do anything. Mountjoy got extremely lucky at Kinsale. There is not an English or Irish historian who would look at the Nine Years War and confidently say that England got it in the bag; there's a reason the Flight of the Earls didn't occur until years AFTER Elizabeth's death.
>Her actions were worse than Cromwell's
Hardly. Some of the commanders did similar stuff to Cromwell, but this happened as Irish Gaels were also acting in and on behalf of the English Court in different places; treated as potential vassals or allies, as opposed to the unilateral persecution and slaughter Cromwell implemented.

I don't think you know as much about him as you think.

>>17863155 (OP)
Literally only the Irish seethe at him

>>17865466
>The massacre of civilians at the siege of Drogheda and sack of Wexford.
Was a response to the massacre at portadown and was only done to the garrison, not the city
Read tom Reilly
>>17865817
>When people think of Cromwell, they think of the ruthless and successful conquest of Ireland.
Because of irish and royalist propaganda
>I think the Catholics in Ireland would disagree with that, kek.
Cromwell was tolerant of catholics you absolute retard.
>She" didn't do anything
Yet we refer to CROMWELL's conquest despite most of the time it being done by fairfax and other commanders
>Mountjoy got extremely lucky at Kinsale. There is not an English or Irish historian who would look at the Nine Years War and confidently say that England got it in the bag; there's a reason the Flight of the Earls didn't occur until years AFTER Elizabeth's death.
England was bound to win
>Hardly
Yeah, they were.
>I don't think you know as much about him as you think.
I don't think you know anything about cromwell if you think he wasn't religiously tolerant

>Traditionally, historians have argued that Cromwell invaded Ireland in 1649 to punish the Catholic Irish nation and commit atrocities, which led to an immense transfer of wealth and power from Irish Catholics to English Protestants. “However, our general review of his letters and speeches in Ireland shows his principal purpose for going to Ireland was, in fact, to deal with the Royalists problem,” said Morrill.
>A key piece of evidence historians have previously relied upon to demonstrate that Cromwell despised Catholics is a declaration he made denouncing the Irish Catholic clergy, printed in London in 1650. Morrill and his team unearthed two earlier versions of this declaration, printed only in Ireland, with a different title.
>“The new versions we found make it clear that while Cromwell is severely critical of the Irish clergy for stimulating rebellion and supporting the massacre of Protestants, he is trying to demonstrate to the ordinary people of Ireland that they have nothing to fear from him,” Morrill said. “That what the priests have told the people – that he’s come to ‘extirpate’ or destroy Catholics and Catholicism in Ireland – is completely untrue, and on the contrary, he’s going to protect religious freedom in Ireland.”
>Although Cromwell later killed dozens of Irish priests and forced hundreds more into exile, Morrill – who is himself an ordained Roman Catholic deacon – argues this happened because Cromwell was convinced many priests had instigated the 1641 rebellion, where terrible atrocities were inflicted on Protestants.
>There is little in Cromwell’s writings, he said, to suggest Cromwell wanted to persecute Catholics for being Catholic, rather than for their politics and supporting the king.
>This fits in with documents his team found, showing Cromwell negotiated with the prominent Catholics to agree that, if they guarantee political loyalty and live peacefully with him, he will give them religious freedom.

>>17863155 (OP)
>>btfos the dutch in battle
How many times did England beat a country at war, & turn them into junior partners?
Like 5?
Its impressive really.

>>17865927
>Drogehda
An English garrison with a small number of Irish troops-both Catholics and Protestants. The defending commander with Arthur Aston, a man from Fulham.
>Wexford
A similar situation, but with more Irish troops than in Drogheda. The citizenry of Wexford appealed David Synnot to accept the "Garrison Terms", but he refused. He met with Cromwell again and asked that the terms be amended to ensure specifically religious liberty and for the garrison to retain their weapons-Cromwell refused.

In the aftermath, Cromwell did the whole "muh revenge for Protestants" but then later admitted that he probably did more damage than intended to the fort. It is widely speculated that he failed to control his men when they entered Wexford.

You should stop getting your history from /int/ memes

>>17865918
>Because of irish and royalist propaganda
No, because he succeeded where the Tudors failed.
>Cromwell was tolerant of catholics you absolute retard.
It must simply be a mysterious coincidence that the immediate aftermath of his invasion saw mass land confiscations from Catholic civilians and widespread displacement of Catholics (most of whom had zero involvement in the war). British historians agree with this sentiment-why can't you?
>Yet we refer to CROMWELL's conquest despite most of the time it being done by fairfax and other commanders
It's usually referred to the "Cromwellian Conquest" because while he wasn't personally present for all of it he was indeed directing much of it. Elizabeth wasn't present for *any* of the wars that happened during her reign, and had barely any involvement in them-with it instead being entrusted to the likes of Bagenal as Marshal of the Royal Irish Army.
>England was bound to win
If you want to be deliberately retarded you are welcome to, but no Irish nor British historian would agree with this sentiment. Mood on the ground at the time was that England was about to lose Ireland.
>Yeah, they were.
No, they weren't-I have pointed out why. It's on you to come up with ways that she was cartoonishly evil, not me.
>I don't think you know anything about cromwell if you think he wasn't religiously tolerant
What do you think a Shephards Pie is made of?

The Treaty of Limerick supposedly guarenteed religious freedoms but was immediately followed by extremely harsh reprisals against Catholics+a general suppression of the faith.

What was promised =/= what was done.

>>17865974
>No, because he succeeded where the Tudors failed.
By elizabeth's death ireland had been pacified and was subject to plantation by james
How did the tudors not suceed?
>It must simply be a mysterious coincidence that the immediate aftermath of his invasion saw mass land confiscations from Catholic civilians and widespread displacement of Catholics (most of whom had zero involvement in the war). British historians agree with this sentiment-why can't you?
Read >>17865939 you illiterate retard.
>Elizabeth wasn't present for *any* of the wars that happened during her reign, and had barely any involvement in them-with it instead being entrusted to the likes
Yet historians, irish ones included, refer to them as the Elizabethan conquests of ireland.
>If you want to be deliberately retarded you are welcome to, but no Irish nor British historian would agree with this sentiment. Mood on the ground at the time was that England was about to lose Ireland.
Yet the english won.
As they won against all other previous rebellions in ireland
strange that
>The Treaty of Limerick supposedly guarenteed religious freedoms but was immediately followed by extremely harsh reprisals against Catholics+a general suppression of the faith.
See earlier reply

>>17865985
>By elizabeth's death ireland had been pacified
No it hadn't. The existential threat to England was gone, but in 1603 there remained many powerful Gaelic nobles-among them Hugh O'Neill, the leader of the Irish Alliance.

England was at the time nearly bankrupt, and famines were causing chaos across Ulster. The terms recieved by the Irish alliance were therefore extremely favourable. It was only in 1607 that they left.

It was 1608 when Derry was sacked and burnt in O'Doherty's rebellion, and after *that* is when the Plantation of Ulster began.
>>>17865985
>read my guardian article by donna ferguson
Come on now, anon. The fact that Cromwell "wanted ordinary people to know they have nothing to fear" remains meaningless given what followed.

As the article you posted reaffirms-he believed that he was taking vengeance for the 1641 rebellion, only the 1641 rebellion wasn't a massacre. It was the rebellion's discovery and Dublin Castle's (false) declaration that it was aimed at a massacre that brought about the first instances of widespread violence.

It happened in both directions; Catholics heard the Protestants were coming to kill them and lashed out-and vice versa.
>Yet historians, irish ones included, refer to them as the Elizabethan conquests of ireland.
They're referred to collectively as the Tudor conquests, as series of military+diplomatic campaigns happened under both Henry and Elizabeth.

Who calls it the Elizabethen conquests?
>Yet the english won.
Of course they did. That does not change how close they came to losing. What's your point here
>see earlier reply
Re-read this, I guess.

We can wax lyrical about discovered documents or statements that suggest otherwise, but the reality on the ground was mass persecuion+killing+displacement of Catholics. That is where the outrage comes from, not the motivation for doing it.

>>17865999
Plantations in ulster occured prior to 1607.
>Who calls it the Elizabethen conquests?
There are multiple books called the Elizabethan Conquest of ireland-many of them by irishmen.
>Re-read this, I guess.
Cromwell persecuted irishmen because they had rebelled and killed protestants. He did not persecute them because they were catholic. He gave rights to catholics
>It was a tribute to Oliver’s intentions at least that the French Ambassador, Bordeaux, was of the considered opinion that the English Catholics fared better under the Protectorate than under any previous Government. The immediate consequence was not only relaxation but profusion. The records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, which had shown a mere 78 persons converted to the Catholic faith in the dark days of 1650-1, reported 364 converts in its annual letter of 1654, rising to 416 in 1655.11 By October 1655 the Venetian Ambassador was having six Masses said every day in his spacious ambassadorial chapel, all packed with English people who were using this tacitly allowed loophole to practise their religion; on festivals, there were as many as ten Masses... the evidence remains that the name of Oliver Cromwell himself was one which English Catholics had no reason to curse and some reasons to bless.

>>17866019
>multiple books called the Elizabethan Conquest of ireland
I only know of one and it's very specifically about the Nine Years War, aka the 1590s-1601. That was 1 war in the wider Tudor Conquest.
>Cromwell persecuted irishmen because they had rebelled and killed protestants
Like I said-nobody is mad about his motiviations. They are angry because he killed and displaced a huge number of Irish Catholics. The wellbeing of English Catholics does not hold much sway to the reality of Irish Catholics in Ireland.

England and Ireland were two extremely different places, and the reality of what *happened* (not what was stated, or promised, or written in treaties) is as clear as day. The only real debate about Cromwell is
>was his conquest unusually cruel/brutal?
Most historians (Irish included) say no, not really.

Most Irish people still see him very negatively, because most Irish people (like most people in most countries) are not historians and probably don't even know why he invaded. They won't know of the Confederates, of the Flight of the Earls, of the Royalists, of any of it. They simply know
>Cromwell invaded
>Killed+displaced lots of Catholics
>Life for Catholics in Ireland was horrible in the aftermath of the Cromwellian Conquest

It isn't hard, therefore, to understand why people have a negative view of him. Cromwellian England is a favourite topic of mine and one I love to learn about, but unfortunately lots of people get weird and extremely defensive of him in Ireland-usually because of a modern political agenda. The opposite exists (Republicans+Nationalists in Ireland demonising him, but it's much easier to demonise mass killings+displacement without a full context than it is to defend them WITH the full context.