Talk:Oliver Cromwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Oliver Cromwell was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Political reputation bias[edit]

This section gives a view of Cromwwell that is too scholarly and doesn't represent popular perceptions of him; whilst most historians think his dictatorship was mixed at best, many English people are republicans and Cromwell's crusading massacres in Ireland and tyranny in England have been ignored in the popular imagination with his legacy being seen as democratic, ironically not 'Warts and all' in the slightest. I don't have any references for this but it is true and someone else should sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

—Unfortunately for the point you have just tried to make, several extrememly well respected authors (and some not so well respected ones) do have references that the 'facts' you believe to be 'true' are shaky at best, downright anti-Cromwell propaganda at worst. If you can find undeniable proof of any of these facts, you would do better than any previous historian on the subject and make yourself a fortune to boot.I don't deny you the right to an opinion, I only wish it were an informed opinion based on research and references instead of school playground arguments such as you have given. (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)CFury194.9.188.22 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

- The response here, after inquiry into bias from the OP, being met with personal attack ('Playground arguments') is essentially the problem with this article - the emotional response this particular figure in history generates. It is biased and will always be - one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

" I don't have any references for this but it is true and someone else should sort it out" is not really an argument that one can take very seriously. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction with Battle of Preston (1648): how many parliamentary troops?[edit]

According to this article

At Preston, Cromwell, in sole command for the first time with an army of 9,000, won a brilliant victory against an army twice that size

However, according to the battlebox of Battle of Preston (1648), the Parliamentary force numbered 14000. The Royalist force (18000) was thus less than twice the size of the former.

Top.Squark (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless this can be accuratley solved, i suggest that they be changed to say he had "9000-14000" troops in the needed areas. (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of 14,000 is not supported in the sources, it was closer to 9,000. I have now fixed the problem. But this is a complicated thing to report accurately because Cromwell, thanks to Hamilton's incompetence was able to engage different parts of Hamilton's army in succession and destroy each different part separately (or "in detail" as the military histories describe such actions). -- PBS (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be remembered that Cromwell marched to Preston from Pembroke and Lambert was already in the North of England. People often forget that Cromwell's strength was his ability to choose excellent officers. What was the strength of Lambert's force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Pettitt (talkcontribs) 15:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question... Why did Cromwell go to Ireland?[edit]

If Cromwell wanted to rid England of its Royal family, why did Cromwell then go to Ireland? Who would have been his most reliable ally against the English royal influence. Is it not a possibility he did not and the powers that be at the time wrote into history it was Cromwell attacking the Irish to make sure the Irish did not team up with Cromwell??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's widely known that he had to go to Ireland - because he was a jeles-boofty. (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Cromwell thought that the Irish would invade England!! - he wrote: If we do not endeavour to make good our interest there, ... ... but they will in a very short time be able to land forces in England and to put us to trouble here ... .... - ClemMcGann (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Read the section "Irish campaign: 1649–50" of this article, it explains the reasons very clearly. Top.Squark (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction - how many slaves?[edit]

Just how many Irish were sold into slavery? In the article, just before the heading "Debate over Cromwell's effect on Ireland" the number given is only 12,000. Yet below the heading the figure becomes 50,000 That 50,000 is from OCallaghan's book based on records in Barbados. Other authors give other figures. O'Donnell in The Irish Abroad has 40,000. Emmet in Ireland under English Rule says "over 100,000". Whatever the actual number, the article should not contradict itself. - ClemMcGann (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ok I'll say 50k - ClemMcGann (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


"In a war fought mostly by amateurs, these strengths were significant and are likely to have contributed to the discipline of his cavalry"

What does in "a war fought mostly by amateurs" mean? The New Model Army was a professional army and by the end of the Civil War it was as good as any army in Europe -- as was shown at the Battle of the Dunes (1658). "the red-coats of the New Model Army under the leadership of Sir William Lockhart, Cromwell's ambassador at Paris, astonished both armies by the stubborn fierceness of their assaults particularly with a successful assault up a sand-hill 50 meters (150 ft) high and strongly defended by Spanish veterans". Both armies were rabbles at the start of the war, but as so often happens in civil wars the winning side were competent professional soldiers by the end of it. (It is the same sort of argument one reads in contemporary European accounts dismissing the competence the American soldiers who fought the American Civil War)-- PBS (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


This article has no discussion of the Inquisition under Cromwell. This is a rather glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would he engage in the Catholic inquisition? Weren't they different centuries? (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


I wish to respectfully state that, contrary to some opinions, England did not become a republic under the rule of that male child of a female dog Oliver Cromwell. It has been a continuous monarchy since before the 1066 Conquest by William of Normandy.

From the moment Charles 1 was beheaded [ judicially murdered by Treason ] at Whitehall on January 30 1649 his son Charles, Prince of Wales in exile, became King Charles 11. This reign thus began not in 1660 [ The Restoration ] but in 1649 and ended in 1685. This is borne out by the fact that the courier who reported the news of his father's death to Prince Charles immediatly addressed him as "Your Majesty".

In 1952 our present Queen was in Africa, at a safari lodge, when she received the news, told by her husband HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, that her father, King George V1 had died in his sleep in England. Prince Phillip was thus the first to tell her that she was now Queen. She was thus re-cognised in Britain from the moment of her father's death and was received at the airport on her return to Britain by Churchill and others as Queen.

The Coronation does not make the monarch but confirms what already is. There are numerous instances that support this opinion, one being Edward, the elder of the so-called 'Princes in The Tower'. At the death of Edward 1V in 1483 his son was re-cognised as Edward V - shown by the fact that Henry V111's son became Edward V1 in 1547. Edward V was, however, never crowned and was lawfully suceeded by his uncle as Richard 111.

Though not in a British scenario, likewise never crowned, the son of the executed Louis XV1 [ 1789 ] was re-cognised as Louis XV11 [ but died as a child during the Revolution ]. When the brother of the executed King succeeded after the fall of Bonaparte in 1815 he used the title of Louis XV111 in re-cognition of the two previous rulers of the Bourbon lineage.

The son of Napoleon 1, who never was crowned as Emperor, [ Duke of Reichstadt ] was re-cognised as Napoleon 11 by Napoleon 111, who was nephew of Bonaparte and became technically the third Emperor of The French.

Princess Victoria was awoken in the middle of the night and told that her uncle William 1V was dead an she was now Queen of England.

The late Edward, Duke of Windsor, became King Edward V111 on the death of George V in 1936 and was acknowledged as such. He, however, was never crowned but waas still the King until he signed the document of abdication in favour of his brother, who became George V1. I offer these historical points to show that England did not become a republic after the murder of Charles 1. It continued as a monarchy in exile until 1660.


Sincerely, Roger DESHON —Preceding unsigned comment added by BLANCSANGLIER (talkcontribs) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it probably better than having a king that wants to be a tampon. One wonders if being reincarnated as a tampon will become official Church of England doctrine if he becomes head of the church. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Charles II was a mere pretender until 1660. Between 1649 and 1660, he was as much King of England as he was King of France (a title he also claimed). (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the practical point raised above - that Charles II was no more King of England than he was of France until 1660 - the problem with this line of argument is that Parliament (without going to deeply into pointless debates about the legality of the Rump and other assemblies) ratified the removal of the King, and his son's return in 1660. Before the 1600s several violent changes of monarch, accompanied by mysterious deaths by starvation, insertion of red hot poker, etc etc, were rubber-stamped by Parliament - the difference being that Charles I was executed by judicial process rather than simply murdered like a failed mediaeval monarch would have been, hence Maj-Gen Thomas Harrison's comment that "it was not a dark thing done in a corner". Since 1688 and especially the Act of Settlement in 1701, it is now a matter of law that Parliament decides on the Royal Succession, which is why it is false to claim, as some do, that the eighteenth century Pretenders had "a better claim to the throne" than the Hanoverians. Paulturtle (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cromwell is Welsh; his real name is Williams[edit]

Since Cromwell is Welsh should he be classified as such? I think it is noteworthy given the hatred that the Irish have for him. It is ironic that the colonization of Ireland was begun by the Tudors, who were Welsh, not English and escalated by Cromwell, another Welshman. Pistolpierre (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cromwell only had one great-great-grandfather who was Welsh. The vast majority of his ancestry was English, he was born English, raised English, and he died English. --John of Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If Cromwell had Welsh ancestry and his real name was Williams, how do you deny his Welsh heritage? His father, grandfather, and great grandfather had Welsh ancestry. If one of your ancestors was Italian it follows that you have Italian ancestry. It doesn't matter if your parents were part English. You would still be Italian or in Cromwell's case Welsh. The article mentions that his family crest showed his Welsh origins. What I'm saying is that he is similar to the Tudors. He was an Englishman of Welsh descent wasn't he?Pistolpierre (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The article already says he has Welsh ancestry. What suggestion are you making to improve the article please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I never denied his Welsh heritage. I acknowledged that he had a Welsh great-great-grandfather, thus he had Welsh ancestry. However, there's a difference between being Welsh and simply having Welsh ancestry. Cromwell may have had Welsh ancestry, but he was brought up according to English culture and thus was English, not Welsh. The same can be said about the Tudors. All of them had Welsh ancestry, but only one of them was actually Welsh and that was Henry VII. --John of Lancaster (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he Ban Christmas?[edit]

I heard that Cromwell famously banned Christmas and Easter because they were not in the bible and therefore sinful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. The event that each commemorates is described in the Bible. However the Bible does not say that either of them should be celebrated. So Cromwell banned feasting, drinking, and secular celebration of Christmas and Easter. But he was quite happy for people to celebrate either of them as days of fasting and prayer. Just as long as you didn't enjoy them. See The Puritan Ban on Christmas for more info. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the article at the link you provided, attending Christmas Mass was made illegal during this time. --RLent (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. But then the Puritans considered mass to be a Bad Thing in general. Doesn't mean that they wanted to ban the observance of Christmas altogether -- just the pagan, secular and Roman Catholic elements. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"In Ireland his record is harshly criticised"[edit]

This shouldn't be in the first sentence of the article, per WP:UNDUE. There's a whole section about Cromwell's campaign in Ireland and the debate over its effect, not to mention the "genocide" sentence at the end of the intro. If there's no objection, I'm going to take it out or move it to the end of the intro where it would be more appropriate. Best, Jonchapple (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd object. his effect is still with us. - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
re the claim that he only upset irish catholics: "He stabled his horses in St. Patrick's Cathedral and is said to have publicly burned the Book of Common Prayer, denouncing it as a Mass book. Many Catholic and Church of Ireland clergy went into hiding." - In search of Ireland's heroes" by Carmel McCaffrey Publisher Ivan Dee, year 2006 isbn 9781566636155 - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure his effect is still with you, but re-read what I wrote. I'm not proposing to whitewash any mention of Cromwell's record in Ireland, just not mention it in the very first paragraph. What do you think Stalin's reputation is like in Ukraine? It's still not in the first paragraph of his article, though. Best, Jonchapple 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
only Irish Catholics complain about his memory, but I agree it should not be so prominent. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The introduction should cover the most notable features of Cromwell. I guess it comes down to Irish notability - vs - other notability, although they need not be in conflict. He's not notable in the British tradition for his conduct in Ireland, although I would say this is changing and in modern times has become more notable. In international opinion, for example the US, I would say it's more of an even thing. Probably a good case could be made for including first mention of it in the first para. I doubt we will find good sources that say "these are the five most notable things about Cromwell in order". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You ask >What do you think Stalin's reputation is like in Ukraine?< The stalin article speaks of "widespread famine, including the catastrophic ...". The 1651 famine is only in a footnote of the Cromwell article, even though Stalin's famine wasn't intended, while Cromwell's was. I suggest that if it is dropped from the first paragraph as per the Stalin article, then there should be a second paragraph in the same style as the Stalin article. As an aside, I'm surprised that the Stalin article does not highlight the defeat of Hitler. - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Stalin's famine "wasn't intended"? I suggest you read the Holodomor article. As for Cromwell, the intro states: "his measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised as genocidal or near-genocidal" - is it really necessary to say his record in Ireland is harshly criticised if there's widespread belief he commited near-genocide? The sentence should be after this one or taken out altogether. Jonchapple (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we leave Stalin's unintentional famine to its own article where it is contended as {{dubious|date=November 2010}}. Cromwell's greatest impact on today is found in Anglo-Irish relations. Attempts to ignore and whitewash are unhelpful,My suggestion for your reading - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's no whitewashing proposed. I wasn't proposing to remove any record of Cromwell's action in Ireland. Read back what I wrote before replying. Jonchapple (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Then why relegate to the end? his lasting legacy - having greatest impact today. - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is his greatest impact today. Undoubtedly his policies had a strong effect on Irish-British relations over the centuries since. But it is also true that Cromwell and the Puritan / Republican revolution (when we use the word "Cromwell", we often mean the latter, as he was only part of that movement and not always the leading part) have had a very major impact on the British political and cultural makeup, ranging from the evolution of the Parliamentary system and Constitutional Monarchy to the distrust of ideological views (as a reaction against Cromwell's dictatorship) that is very common in England particularly. The article shouldn't be too anglo-centric, but equally it can't put the Irish view uppermost. It's a mixture. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that an Irish view, per se, be first - rather his major legacy - what is most notable for? what was the enduring effect of his life? You mention major impacts on the British makeup, however you accept that he was just part of such influences. His British legacy was blunted by the restoration. Whereas in Ireland his actions left permanent scars. Ireland was integrating, was supporting the crown. His actions brought a rift which was never bridged. There were later scars, such as the famine, but would they have been as severe if the alienation wasn't already there? - ClemMcGann (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with Jamesinderbyshire. It's too Hiberno-centric to say that that's Cromwell's lasting legacy - I know it is in Ireland, and I'm aware he's reviled across the Irish sea, but in mainland Great Britain the majority of people wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that. Here he's most remembered for his role in the Civil War and contributions to the development of constitutional monarchy and limiting the role of the King, not his vendetta against Irish catholics. Jonchapple (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made my point. Perhaps you can, over time, reflect on it. I am of the opinion that events such as the Glorious Revolution had far more influence on the development of constitutional monarchy and limiting the role of the King than Cromwell's abolition on the monarchy which was promptly reversed. ClemMcGann (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In terms of law the Glorious Revolution was important, but surely it would never have happened without the Civil War and the Republic. The Restoration lasted only a generation - Charles II had come close to restoring a strong monarchy by the time of his death but iirc suspected his brother lacked the political skills to keep it going, and if so he was right. As for the Irish dimension, I'm inclined to agree that it is only part of Cromwell's story. The article should discuss the matter fairly, along with arguments that his actions in Ireland were within the customs of warfare at the time - a lot of Irish readers might be astonished to learn that, as far as tolerance between Protestant sects goes, Cromwell was actually a relatively moderate man compared to many.Paulturtle (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable wording.[edit]

In the third paragraph there is this sentence: "An intensely religious man—a Puritan Moses—he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." I believe the inclusion of "a Puritan Moses" is possible bias, and suggests that Cromwell was truly guided by God, rather than merely echoing Cromwell's belief. I would think it would be wise to remove this fragment and leave the sentence as "An intensely religious man, he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." Does anyone object or have an opinion on this?IrishStephen (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it. Cromwell often referred to himself as a new Moses and so did many of his contemporaries, as many RS tell us. I can't see any "bias" here. Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd argue that it is not notable, as those sources you linked mainly mention how he identified himself with Moses, while not disgussing the merit of the assignation. It's merely a bit of barely subsantiated trivia, and clutters an otherwise serviceable factual statement. I see no reason to retain it.IrishStephen (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It isn't trivial, as Cromwell's self-identification as Biblical is often said by historians to be a key to his character, however deluded; it might be more accurate though to have the sentence say ..."intensely religious man—a self-styled Puritan Moses—he fervently believed God was guiding his victories." - thoughts ? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with the inclusion of self-styled. I haven't read too much on the subject beyond history classes back in school, so I was unaware that it was that important. I just came across the page, and thought the sentence was jarring. If we are agreed that changing it to self-styled is okay, I will change it now. Thanks for discussing it.IrishStephen (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edit.[edit]

I reverted an edit by User:Alan_Liefting where he removed the Category:Religious_persecution without any sources or edit summary. It appears to me based on the article as a whole that this category should remain. To Alan, if you can cite a source or sources that justify your edit, please note them here. Your edit may be a case of WP:BOLD but without any discussion of your reason of removing a seemingly integral part of the article, it looks closer to WP:VANDAL. IrishStephen (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the truncation of the article.[edit]

Do we really need such an extensive section on the debate over his effects on Ireland? It seems almost to have taken prominence over the section on the campaign itself. Perhaps a little too much pandering to Irish editors is afoot?
--I,E Wouldst thou speak? 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The appendix sections are a mess[edit]

The MOS:APPENDIX sections are a mess. There are way to many sources listed in the section. The inline citation need to be cleaned up an an alphabetical list of general references supplied for the inline citations.

There can be a further reading section but it shoudl be kept to a short list, Say half a dozen books or better still a list of outside bibliographys listing books that experts have selected. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

the section entitled "Books" is a useless compilation of old books - -it can be deleted without loss. The bibliography is already a short list drawn from thousands of citations and covers important themes (politics, military, England, historiography) and should be kept because many different scholars have given many different interpretations, and to drop some --either out of ignorance of their contents or POV dislike of their interpretations--violates Wiki's NPOV rules and is a disservice to the readers. Thousands of students a year have to study Cromwell in school and our job is to help them. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly when did he die?[edit]

I raised this issue once before but it went nowhere. I'm interested (and our readers are interested) in knowing) exactly when Cromwell died.

They can't both be correct. Which is the correct date pair, and how do we know? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We could cross check against the day of the week, if we knew that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm amazed this question has come up as his death date is well known that any reliable sources should have the correct day of the month if not the year. Cromwell's death date is a coincidence. It is the same date as the start of his most notorious action and of his two most decisive victories Siege of Drogheda (started 3 September 1649), the victory at Dunbar (3 September 1650) and the victory at Worcester (3 September 1651) — his "Crowning Mercy". All those dates are in Julian calendar as is usually for Commonwealth dates. Just in case anyone is in any further doubt here is a copy of primary source "Cromwell lying in state. Etching and engraving, with short biography ( (Registration number: 1868,0808.3261)". The British Museum.  ( same engraving in the national archives). -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After he died, his body was buried in private in the Westminster Abbey on 10 November, the effigy that had been lying down while he was lying in state (see source above) was propped up and stood there crown on head orb and sceptre in hands. So it remain until his funeral on Tuesday 23 November when it was taken still standing to Westminster Abbey for the state funeral. (Little, Patrick. "The Death and Funeral of Oliver Cromwell".  [1658 words, Word.doc])

Cromwell died on 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Friday 3 September (Forster, John (1864). The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England: With a Treatise on the Popular Progress in English History. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans. pp. 639–642.  Text "volume 5 " ignored (help))

Foster has a detailed description of all this including the passage:

His body, presently after his expiration, was washed and laid out; and being opened, was embalmed, and wrapped in a acre cloth six double, and put into an inner sheet of lead, enclosed in an elegant coffin of the choicest wood. Owing to the disease he died of, which, by-the-by, appeared to be that of poison, his body, although thus bound up and laid in the coffin, swelled and bursted, from whence came such filth, that raised such a deadly and noisome stink, that it was found prudent to bury him immediately, which was done in as private a manner as possible.

--PBS (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very belated thanks, PBS.
Just to be clear, I was never questioning the date of death per se. I was merely wanting to establish which calendar is being used when we say "25 April 1599" and "3 September 1658", because that basis wasn't explicitly stated in the article - and still isn't, but I'll fix that.
In passing, you've told me what I wanted to know: we're using the Julian calendar. The Gregorian equivalents for Cromwell's dates would therefore be: 5 May 1599 and 13 September 1658. I'll make a footnote to that effect. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


There is a new biographical article about Oliver Cromwell's uncle called Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) there is a discussion about the dab extension on the article's talk page talk:Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) in the next few days Google will start to display it along with this page. This page is displayed as

Oliver Cromwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader who overthrew the English monarchy and temporarily turned ...

From that it is difficult to tell the difference from the 1655 chap:

Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Oliver Cromwell (c. 1566–1655) was an English landowner, lawyer and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1589 ...

I suggest that we change the lead to emphasis his role as Lord Protector so that is show up in the Google summary eg:

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English Member of Parliament who during the English Civil War ....

-- PBS (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cromwell Family Early American Connection in Eastern Maryland and New England (omitted?):[edit]

Chapter XIV, beginning page 253, of James Waylen's "The House of Cromwell", 1897, London, as revised by the Hon. John Gabriel Cromwell; addresses the issue of the early American, Maryland Cromwell family branch.

What of the early New England, alleged Cromwell family branch? I am not an authority on this. I alert you only to the possibility of this branch. Allegedly Mrs. Argentine (Argentine is a family last name, not researched) Cromwell Ross, who as Mrs. Benjamin Cram, Sr., died New England, 5-126-1677, and had wed Benj. 11-28-1662; the son of John Cram and Hester White.

Argentine had Benj. Cram., Jr., born 12-330-1666, who wed Sarah Shaw, who had Charity Cram, 3-28-1703/Sept 15, 1774, who wed Josiah Smith, Sr., of Strathan, N.H. Daughter Hannah Smith wed Wm. Burleigh, Jr. (son of Wm. Burleigh, Sr., and Elinor Johnson of Ipswich) Who had Hannah Burleigh, who wed DAR Patriot. Pvt. Ebeneezer "Eben" Barker, Jr., born 3-6-1716, Cornish, Maine; the son of Maj. Ebeneezer Barker, Sr., and Mary Rundlett, daughter of Satchwell Rundlett, Sr., and Mercy Leavitt. Maj. Barker was the son of Noah Barker and Martha Figgett.

Mrs. Hannah Burleigh Barker had Elizabeh Barker of Sratham, N.H., who wed War of 1812, (Augusta?) militia Capt. Steven Jewett, III, of Sidney, Maine. Son Steven Jewett, IV. removed to 1830's Smithville (now Southport), N.C., on the Cape Fear River, as it's U.S. postmaster, and wed "Miss Gracie", a Smithville private school headmistress who died on a trip the the Southern Pines, N.C., area. He wed next, Lucy Anna Bradley, who had my great, grandmother, Mrs. Eliza Yonge Jewett Wootten, buried Oakdale Cemetery, Wilmington, N.C. (see Find-a-Grave website entry).

Mrs. Wootten's brother, Wm. Henry Bradley, via New Orleans; removed to San Francisco, Calif., and there established the World's Fair Exposition, Gold Metal in Photography firm, of Messrs. Bradley & Rolufson which allegedly build SFO's first 'skyscraper' of five stories, with first elevator. Stephen Jewett, IV, is buried at his father-in-law, Richard Bradley, Jr's, summer home on Bradley's Creek, now called "Airlie Gardens". Argentine Cromwell had male Cromwell kin, also in early New England. He Argentine lineage, if any, seems un-traced? There was another early New England, Cram Family. A Mr. Cram, a lately deceased, high CIA official, may be of either early Cram lineage? ∞ focusoninfinity 02:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talkcontribs) Note: The website , on Giles Cromwell, 1603-1673, says Giles was the first cousin of Lord Oliver Cromwell. Giles was born Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. He was the son of Sir Oliver Cromwell and Anne Hoofman. Giles wed Alice Wickes in Hampshire, England. Widowed, on 10 Sept 1698, Newberry, Mass., he wed Alice Wickes (my error, see website for correct version). Giles died there 25 June 1673. Their issue: Dorothy Cromell who died 1673, Essex, Mass. Capt. Philip Cromwell who wed Elizabth Tuttle, and died 1708, Dover, N.H. My aforesaid Mrs. Argentine Cromwell Cram who 1711 died Hampton Falls, Rockingham, N.H. The last child was, Dr. Thomas Cromwell who died 1649.∞ focusoninfinity 02:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talkcontribs) Note: Giles Cromwell, son of Sir Oliver Cromwell and Anna Hooftman served as a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Princess Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia wife of Frederick of the Elector of the Palantine. He made his will and died in the Hague in 1634. He was buried at the Church of St. James, known as The Great Church. His will is kept in the Hertfordshire Archives and may be obtained from the website Access to Archives. Dorothy Cromwell who died in 1673 in Salem was the wife of Phillip Cromwell, she was not related to either Giles Cromwell of Newbury or Giles Cromwell son of Sir Oliver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyconnection (talkcontribs) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


The image of 1658 half-crown begs the question of how many other coins were struck by Cromwell during The Protectorate. No details, nor this image, appear in that article. Is a sub-section here (or there) needed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I found the rendering and translation of the Latin inscription incorrect, I took the liberty to amend the captions under the image of Cromwell's half-crown coin earlier this day. Greetings from Germany (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, very good. I took the further liberty of emboldening to try and make it even clearer. What do you think or know about other coinage? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that JDF6574 has now reverted both, and probably quite rightly. It's quite a lot of information to cram in to a caption as it stands. But something in the text might be of benefit, perhaps including mention of the Laurel wreath which makes Cromwell look more like a Roman Emperor. Perhaps JDF6574 could tell us more. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, even if the full Latin inscription crammed up the caption, there's no reason for our colleague JDF6574 to revert to the previous, wrong English translation. Instead of the syntactically incoherent "Oliver, by the Grace of God and Republic, of England, Scotland, Ireland etc. Protector" (as the translation was given then and is now again) it should read: "Oliver, by the Grace of God Protector of the Republic of the English, Scots, Irish etc." I still think that writing out heavily abbreviated inscriptions is a welcome support to everyone's understanding, cramming up captions or not. Greetings from Germany, Klaus Schneider -- (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Cromwell bias regarding Ireland[edit]

To begin with the introduction only has two very short sentences at the end of a very long introduction:"His measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised as genocidal or near-genocidal.[5] In Ireland his record is harshly criticised.[6]". The reference to Cromwell in the first paragraph is totally inadequate. A proper reference to Ireland needs to be made at the end of this paragraph. There is much talk on this talk page of keeping the article neutral and not being to Irish slanted. The introduction effectively implies that the Irish events are insignificant. I propose some sort of adequate mention of Ireland in the first paragraph. Maybe change the last sentence to: After the execution of King Charles I in 1649, Cromwell dominated the short-lived Commonwealth of England, conquered Ireland and Scotland, ruling as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death in 1658. His actions in his Irish Campaign (1659-1650) against Irish Catholics are highly controversial. This would still be quite inadequate in Irish eyes, however it at least makes the article less bias. Moving on through the introduction, a bit more expansion on the Irish issue is needed. Moving to the Debate over his effect on Ireland section. It is notable that in this section anti-Cromwell views are presented in very neutral language while pro-Crowell views are presented in extremely strong language. While the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford were in some ways typical of the day, especially in the context of the recently ended Thirty Years War[55] which reduced the male population of Germany by up to half, [56] there are few comparable incidents during Parliament's campaigns in England or Scotland. Some people estimate that up to half the Irish population died as a result of Cromwell, the relevance of Germany here is questionable to say the least and the language used is very strong. Amateur[64] Irish historian (and Drogheda native) Tom Reilly has taken this argument further, claiming that the accepted versions of the campaigns in Drogheda and Wexford in which wholesale killings of civilians on Cromwell's orders took place "were a 19th century fiction".[54] However, Reilly's conclusions have been rejected by other scholars, while validated by others Why are amateur historians making it onto the Cromwell page, when there are huge amounts of historians in this debate. Again to a neutral reader, bias is evident. A lot of re-editing needs to be done here. Firstly without changing the content, more neutral language needs to be employed. Secondly references from insignificant sources (eg. Tom Reilly), need to be replaced with more reliable information. --Tribunicia (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • As a neutral party (Belgian), I agree with your proposals, though I would also briefly mention in the first paragraph what his actions in the Irish Campaign were. Otherwise, it's all too vague why they could be considered highly controversial. Morgengave (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I have carried out my above proposals. If any changes to my amendments are made, would the user please explain their changes here. Tribunicia (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Moaning about "bias" because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's take on the matter is mistaken. "Bias" is when somebody misrepresents or refuses to mention key facts or arguments, not when they say something you don't agree with. Similarly, what makes you so sure you speak for "Irish" eyes? I've known Irish people who bang on tediously and ignorantly about alleged English oppression - sometimes, but not always, in jest - and equally I've known Irish people willing to discuss the matter rationally and remark that the likes of OC and King Billy need to be judged fairly according to the standards of their own day. Lots of opinions exist.

The relevance of Germany is most certainly not "questionable". It's not a coincidence that the Russian Civil War (and of course the events in Ireland between 1916 and the early 1920s) happened after WW1, or the Wild West happened after the US Civil War. War feeds fears and resentment, makes it look as though resorting to war is normal and often means there are a lot of disturbed, rootless men around keen to take up soldiering again as it's what they know. There were not, on the whole, comparable massacres in Britain because the British were mostly Protestants, albeit of different sects - Cromwell became Lord General because his predecessor Fairfax resigned rather than wage war on Protestant Scotland.

As for Tom Reilly, his book was quite widely-read when it came out and calling him an amateur is probably somebody's attempt to smear and discredit him. Lots of academics are silly, lots of good historians are not academics, and equally lots of rubbishy writers are, strictly speaking, "professionals" as they make a living from writing mediocre books. What matters is whether the facts and arguments stand up to analysis. I'm not too bothered about whether he's mentioned by name but I've added back the references.Paulturtle (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the fact that you returned the aforementioned references. As regards my edits. These edits were simply to balance the introduction. To an Irish reader, or indeed many international readers who would have heard of Cromwell through his actions in Ireland, the introduction lacked significant mention of Ireland. Indeed it implies that his actions in Ireland were less significant then his role In the English Civil War, a view a neutral encyclopedic website should not take. My changes have nothing to anti-English sentiment which some people may feel. I posted my proposals two months ago, significant time for people who disagreed to express their views. I feel obliged however to criticise your use of "alleged English oppression". To say that oppression did not occur during Ireland's time as a colony and as part of the UK is nonsense. Please keep opinion off wikipedia. Thank you Tribunicia (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about Oliver Cromwell, not about Oliver Cromwell’s role in Ireland. His role in Ireland was a relatively small, albeit important, part of his life.

I did not say that there had never been “oppression” in Ireland – my point was that to see Irish history simply as a tale of “oppression” of “the Irish” by “the English” is oversimplification to the point of peddling mythology rather than serious history. National identities and historical narratives change over time. Dublin was once an English city. Prague was a German city as late as the early nineteenth century – some central European cities changed allegiances from German to Magyar to Slav over the course of little more than a century. In my own lifetime I’ve seen South Wales become significantly more “Welsh” than when I grew up there – my late father spoke with an English accent, which would be almost unthinkable in a Welsh local politician nowadays. If you were a Hindu peasant in India in 1757 it would have mattered not a jot whether your village was under the rule of the Moghul Empire or the East India Company, nor would the concept of “India” have meant anything to you. During the English civil war local allegiances and ancestral hatreds often mattered a lot more than whether the magnate in a local area was affiliated to King or Parliament, and I have little doubt that the same was true of many periods of Irish and Scottish history.

And please do not be silly enough to assume that your take on the past constitutes objective “neutral” fact and that any attempt to look deeper than the oversimplifications of national mythology is “bias” or “opinion”. Thank you.Paulturtle (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The original poster is being lambasted for a simple assertion, that the view needs to be balanced. The opening paras on Cromwell simply violate NPOV by dismissing the atrocities abroad. Asserting that Ireland was unimportant and that Cromwell's critical activities were in England is in the absurdum ad hitlerum tradition saying Hitler did a great job on the roads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not so. The article does not "dismiss" his Irish activities, and neither do I. I said that this is an article about Oliver Cromwell, not about Oliver Cromwell’s role in Ireland. His role in Ireland was a relatively small, albeit important, part of his life. There is a separate article about Cromwell's Irish role. It is also the case that England is, like it or not, a larger and more important country than Ireland, even if not quite to the degree that it was a hundred years ago when Whiggish historians would have praised Cromwell for his role in paving the way for Britain's rise to world domination. I did, however, take the poster to task for accusing the article of "bias" because it mentioned that Cromwell's actions in Ireland need to be seen in the context of the religious wars of the time, and for accusing me of "opinion" when I remarked, if perhaps not making my point as clearly as I might have done, that there was a bit more to Irish history than a simple tale of "oppression" of "the Irish" by "the English".

It is, I am told, a rule of internet discussions that somebody will sooner or later bring Hitler and the Nazis into it as a substitute for rational argument, but since you brought it up, have a look at the Hitler article on wikipedia - his genocide of the Jews rates only a few sentences of the introduction. Nobody is saying it's not important, but it is less important than his becoming dictator of one of the world's most powerful countries and being more responsible than any other human being for the Second World War. Indeed, Ireland was a brief episode in Cromwell's life whereas the Final Solution was a sort of culmination of Hitler's life work which took up a lot of Third Reich resources in the final years of the war. And that's even before we get onto arguments about whether or not Cromwell is calumnied for doing things in Ireland that to a greater or lesser extent would have happened anyway, or that his sacking of Drogheda and Wexford may or may not have been allowable within the customs of warfare at the time (it is still possible to behave harshly and still be acting within your recognised rights - the two are not necessarily contradictory). I'm sure there must be many other famous rulers in history who rate large in the history of some small country which they conquered or whose people they massacred, and yet those events form only a small part of the biography of the ruler in question - the intro to the wiki article on the Emperor Claudius devotes less than a single sentence to his conquest of Britain in 43AD, despite the fact that this is what he is best remembered for in Britain.

But, as I've remarked elsewhere on this page, Cromwell is, for good or ill, one of those characters who came to be calumnied in popular mythology, so it inevitably attracts incessant angry accusations of "bias" or "whitewash" from those who come here and don't find what they want to find.Paulturtle (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell's brother Henry[edit]

"Along with his brother Henry, Cromwell had kept a smallholding of chickens and sheep, selling eggs and wool to support himself, his lifestyle resembling that of a yeoman farmer."

This entry is incorrect, as Oliver Cromwell's brother was probably no older than 22 when he died.

According to Antonia Fraser in Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, Cromwell's brother "Henry died at a date unknown but certainly well before their father in 1617."[1]

However, he had a first cousin, Henry, who was the son of Sir Oliver Cromwell (who was Oliver Cromwell's uncle) who fought for the Royalist cause[2] . From what I gather from Fraser's book, Colonel Henry Cromwell was Sir Oliver's grandson.[3] Cmcash (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Fraser, Antonia (1985). Cromwell Our Chief of Men. London: Methuen London Limited. p. 4. 
  2. ^ Fraser, Antonia (1985). Cromwell Our Chief of Men. London: Methuen London Limited. pp. 84, 289. 
  3. ^ Fraser, Antonia (1985). Cromwell Our Chief of Men. London: Methuen London Limited. pp. 593–594. 

Christopher Hill is a mostly sympathetic biographer[edit]

The introduction claims that Cromwell is characterised as a "regicidal dictator" by historians such as David Hume and Christopher Hill as quoted by David Sharp. I don't think Hill's name should be here. While not uncritical, he is on the whole positive towards Cromwell's legacy and the quoted book "God's Englishman" is not accurately summarised by the line about sitting on bayonets. Haven't read Sharp so can't comment there. But I suggest at the least deleting Hill from this sentence. Geoff Bache (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about this for some time, I've read GE a long time ago and no longer have a copy, perhaps someone could go through it. There is a general problem with the article that it overplays the role Cromwell himself had in the Irish deaths from war and famine; not to underplay them, as it was a grevious period in Irish history, but OC wasn't the only player and much of the disaster happened after he departed Ireland and possibly not under his control, at least according to some historians. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that aspect of thearticle will ever stay static for long. Cromwell is, for good or ill, one of those characters who came to be calumnied in popular mythology, so it inevitably attracts angry accusations of "bias" or "whitewash" from those who come here and don't find what they want to find.Paulturtle (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I also read it quite a while ago but still have a copy and have just re-read the analysis chapters at the end so I feel reasonably confident in my claims. Other places to look for confirmation of this are the Amazon reviews of GE and the Guardian article n linked from the bottom of Wikipedia's article on Hill. Geoff Bache (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As nobody complained I deleted the reference to Hill. Perhaps a new one should be added that more fairly represents his view of Cromwell, but I leave that to others. Geoff Bache (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo or grammatical error[edit]

"At the time of his birth his grandfather died, Sir Henry Williams, was one of the two wealthiest landowners in Huntingdonshire." This line is somewhat confusing. Thanks.

Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ending line of the lede.[edit]

" However, his measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised by some as genocidal or near-genocidal, and in Ireland his record is harshly criticised." - Wasn't Cromwell's treatment of the English Catholics (OMG, yes - they do exist even back then) and English loyalists pretty harsh? Yet I don't see this mentioned at all. Sounds very much like a snide, Celtic nationalist attempt to paint the English as all evil again. -- (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Beginning of the Protectorate[edit]

On 16 or 25 december 1653? There are the differences between text and table at the up right of the article

Cromwell's military style[edit]

This section is wrong is several ways:

  • "and followed the common practice of ranging his cavalry in three ranks and pressing forward, relying on impact rather than firepower."

There were two different methods of using cavalry at that time. What is being described here is can be called the Swedish method as opposed to the Caracole (see Cavalry tactics#Tactics of heavy cavalry using ranged weapons).

  • "In a war fought mostly by amateurs,"

The New Model Army may have been many things but amateur was not one of them. The NMA was a professional military machine and its regiments were as good as any veterans in Europe (Battle of the Dunes (1658)).

Many authorities quote the Restoration of 1660 as the birth date of our modern British Army. While this may be true as far as continuity of unit identity is concerned, it is untrue in a far more fundemental sense. The evidence of history shows that the creation of an efficient military machine and its proving on the battlefield, predates the Restoration by 15 years. It was on the fields of Nasby, Dunbar and Dunes that the foundations of the British professional army were laid.

— Stuart Asquith (1981) New Model Army 1645-60 page 3

  • Cromwell introduced close-order cavalry formations, with troopers riding knee to knee; this was an innovation in England at the time, and was a major factor in his success.

Riding knee to knee at any speed is impossible, it actually meant in close formation. Whether it was new innovation in England is debatable. For example many of the Scots had fought with the Swedes so it is likely that their cavalry used similar tactics and they had been in England on and off since 1638. Also is it known what method Rupert's Cavaliers were meant to be using? He certainly depended on shock tactics and had been doing so since the Battle of Vlotho in October 1638.

  • [Cromwell] kept his troops close together following skirmishes where they had gained superiority, rather than allowing them to chase opponents off the battlefield. This facilitated further engagements in short order, which allowed greater intensity and quick reaction to battle developments. This style of command was decisive at both Marston Moor and Naseby.

True, but it needs a citation. -- PBS (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick thoughts from me:
  • Agree, I wouldn't want to charge knee to knee! There's a work by John Vernon (1644) that encourages forming up and charging in this way, but (Original Research warning!) I don't know if this advice was actually followed or not in practice, or if it proved practical to do so.
  • I think shock tactics in England are usually described as an innovation, but that needs to be seen in the light of the absence of fighting in England; Rupert is credited in some sources with introducing Swedish-style charges etc. The Parliamentary tactics changed over the war, shifting from the established Dutch to the Swedish style.
  • For the NMA in the interregnum period, I'd entirely agree with you - they're professionals. In the 1640s, particularly the first war, I think I can see what the statement is pointing to (they weren't then professionals, but recently conscripted farmers, townsfolk etc.)
  • Agree, references would be good! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


What has this edit got to do with Oliver Cromwell? RashersTierney (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's just a random stab at the Catholic Church with no particular relevance to 17th century opposition to Papism. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a Catholic and have no liking whatsoever for the institution, and certainly no desire to protect it from criticism.) Pinkbeast (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that seems quite a fair appraisal. I was just surprised to see the comment of any historian removed ostensibly because it was "POV". I had assumed that the comment by Lecky (whenever he lived and whenever he made it) was in the context of a discussion about Cromwell - so it might be used to illustrate how OC has been the trigger for some extreme views. Could the contributor possibly tell us - what did it have to do with Cromwell? (For the avoidance of doubt, my religious persuasions are irrelevant). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Superlative Tone[edit]

One can't help noticing the tone of this article paints Cromwell as a hero of his time and thus remembered. The mass murders are softened by phrasing such as 'in revenge for' as if the killing was justified He is not favoured in Ireland but never mind that, a little BBC poll makes him a most popular historical figure. That's what's important - opinion, not facts. Did I tell you that he was very religous, guided by God even.

In its tone, this article violates NPOV. I argue that it should be rewritten to represent the man based on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you never told us. But is that your opinion, or a fact? Revenge is no real "justification", is it? And it wasn't very soft. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, that's because Cromwell is a hero of his time. For all that he was a monster by modern standards, his reputation in Ireland is exaggerated (and amongst American "Irish" people, bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality); and the kings of the time would have done worse. In the UK, in the meantime, he laid the groundwork for the Glorious Revolution and the transition from a de facto absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy; he's as important to British history as the French Revolution is to France. Not a nice man, but undeniably a great one.
And "intensely religious, believing God personally guided him?" That's not praise; that is a deeply worrying thing to be true of someone in a position of power. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Penal Laws against Roman Catholics"?[edit]

The introduction to the article needs tidying up and clarification. It states: "During this period a series of Penal Laws were passed against Roman Catholics ...". I think that this sentence should be removed, because, in general, it isn't true and gives a misleading impression. The English laws against Roman Catholics, and the harsher ones against Priests, were passed under Elizabeth, vigorously enforced under James, and reaffirmed under the Restoration.

Unlike his regal predecessors, Cromwell believed in private liberty of conscience: the recusancy laws were abolished by the Rump in September 1650 by the "Act for the Repeal of several Clauses in Statutes imposing Penalties for not coming to Church."

If the intention of the phrase is to refer specifically to Ireland, then this is dealt with by the section upon the Irish campaign.

Perhaps there should be a short section specifically about Cromwell's attitude to religion and how it affected his own and state policy (which were not always the same). Perhaps it could be entitled "Independents versus Presbyterians" or "Cromwell as an Independent"? His relationship with George Fox certainly deserves a mention too. Sasha (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

American colonies[edit]

What were Cromwell's and Parliment's relationship with the American colonies? This would be good for the article. For a while America had no King. Did Cromwell change or influence American policy? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lord Protector - The highest of all British titles ever !?[edit]

Since Lord Protector clearly outranks common titles like "king", "queen" and even "empire" (!?), I wonder if any English/British higher title among all soverigns and knights ever has existed ? No king has been rembembered with "Rememberence Sunday", have they ? But has there ever been a "Super Lord Protector" or "Supreme Lord Protector" that has done so much for England, parliamentism and turning England from a splitted island north of France into the greatest nation ever ? (Questions) UaruRamirezi (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of the section on the dissolution of the Rump Parliament[edit]

Does anybody else think this section could use more detail on what Cromwell and the Army found so objectionable about the Rump Parliament? I think the section should elaborate on the issue of a religious settlement which was not enacted. It would also be improved if the various factions were described -- Presbyterians, Independents, etc. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Isn't Cromwellian a byword these days? --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I only ever hear it used in direct association with Oliver, if you'll forgive some OR. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sleeping Hero Legends[edit]

"The stories suggest that his bodily remains are buried in London, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire or Yorkshire.[107] It continues to be questioned whether the body mutilated at Tyburn was in fact that of Oliver Cromwell."

This is in the genre "the King is asleep to rise again at our time of need" Arthur and all that. Unless "the stories" is a widely held historical POV (say three modern biographies on Cromwell) it seems to me that this is attaching undue weight to a POV and the sentences containing the "story" should be removed. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert Blake - (section 'Death and Posthumous Execution') - check needed[edit]

This article says:

"On 30 January 1661, (the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I), Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of Robert Blake, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton." (my emphasis)

This needs checking - I am familiar with the fact that Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw were posthumously executed but I question the inclusion of Blake because his article only mentions he was disinterred and reburied in a communal pit at St Margaret's, Westminster. Blake was not one of the Regicides.Cloptonson (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Worth checking Pepys's diary? I think he mentions it, but I don't have the 1661 volume readily available. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Anyone else feel the recent edits by User:Duane E. Tressler are a bit of a mess? Besides the outright typos, they seem to add a lot of pointless verbiage - for example, need we really note every time that the "Catholics" are Roman Catholics? - and one or two things that are not in the sources. They're on a bit of a rampage over the Kings and Queens of England... Pinkbeast (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarify his death in the introductory text[edit]

In reference to Cromwell's death in the lead section, could someone clarify that his passing was of natural causes. He lived a rather controversial and high profile life in a somewhat violent era of history, so it would be helpful to explicitly note this in the introductory remarks. Koijmonop (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the lead; makes sense to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional information to ancestry[edit]

Cromwell descended from Jasper Tudor, uncle of King Henry VII — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Source, please. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Did any of the Irish end up as slaves.[edit]

It seems like there is a debate coming about wether there is sufficient notable reference to claim that some of Cromwells Irish were made into slaves. I have added some over-referencing, as is the done thing in such disagreement, and I am just going to list some more here to make it easier,, Journal, indymedia, irish american news, Irish Echo, Sligo Heritage, Irish Society, History Ireland. And that is only flicking through two pages of search hits, so to totally delete reference, in the section all about what he is or is not accused of... Not one instance of the word "slave" and yet hundreds of RS publishing it. What were the guidelines again? ~ R.T.G 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: There is no dispute about what happened. The dispute is about who gave the orders, BBC secondary revision. ~ R.T.G 12:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My initial reaction was that we have done this one before, but in all fairness, I think it was on another talk page.
The difficulty here is the distinction between indentured servants and slaves, a distinction which is effectively invisible in the modern era; a 17th-century indentured servant might well be in a condition we would rightly regard as slavery. [3] draws this distinction itself; "a demand also existed for indentured servants of European stock, who worked for a fixed period of time", "effectively as slaves". Not slaves, but in conditions akin to slavery - save that no slave in that era ever acquired small landholdings after seven years of service.
The second difficulty is the usual one; Ireland is a small part of Cromwell's life, and we should resist the tendency to make the article a WP:COATRACK to hang every Irish grievance on.
Reliable sources do _not_ say that captured Irish people were sold into slavery. They say that they were sold into indentured servitude; if they say "slaves", it's because they elide that distinction. And no, we should not; no-one would suggest that articles about Ancient Rome should use "slave" to describe anything but the people who Roman society called slaves, but then, no-one's got a burning grudge against Ancient Rome. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Pinkbeast who states the issues clearly. Rjensen (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Negative. Would you like me to try and tie 100 reputable sources to Cromwells effect on Ireland simply by googling it? Well answer me why this article does not give the word even once... not even to say that it is not true... And you think our definition of slavery, or any other word, should be based on the preference of the subject about which it is written? Oh, but the slave holders said they were not slaves, so we've got to go with that..? No. That's not the -Queensbury Rules-. If they were slaves as we see it, then let me tell you something about what they were... ~ R.T.G 21:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Really, one short paragraph about one word with a reasonable argument behind it, and you feel comfortable enough to claim coatracking the full range of Irish historical grievance? The man was a king. It was the most significant event of his life outside of stuff like watching his children born. ~ R.T.G 21:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the most significant event of his life was the Civil War. Or becoming Lord Protector. Or the execution of Charles I. Or... well, the relatively short period he spent in Ireland isn't it.
As I said, I don't see you rewriting the pages about Rome. In the 17th century, "slave" and "indentured servant" were distinct categories; to elide that distinction is misleading. The way we use the word about situations in the modern era is not as helpful as it might be because "slave" as a formal status has (thankfully) been largely eradicated. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Come on, get the over referencing out of the article. It is not for us to decide the nature of publication. The is no problem pointing out that Henry 8 killed more people than anyone else in his role. It doesn't unbalance his article. It doesn't sway his religious protractors. He killed three of his wives in public! People aren't worried. It's just information. It's just facts. If they are disputed, you just point out that they are disputed, not going round hiding the dispute unless you are trying to escalate it. He was a military commander at the end of the dark ages. What do you expect, embroidery hobbies and protesting for suffrage? No. He hurt people for a living. Such questions about the details are matter of course and part of the information about the subject. Can you not agree with that? The BBC is teaching it to secondary school kids as I have referenced above. How do you argue with that. The reference to the Rome article is totally irrelevant here unless you are proposing that you are inspired to improve it, and I doubt that is what you meant. ~ R.T.G 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The BBC isn't. The BBC is saying, quite explicitly, that historians disagree (and the BBC is also eliding the slave/indenture distinction, presumably because they are writing for a young audience; the article generally is written in simple language) as to whether it happened. The very first one of your references I looked at does not say they were sold as slaves.
A more reasonable approach would be to reflect what references actually say; that Irish people were made indentured servants, but that the conditions they ended up in were little distinguishable from slavery. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: obviously, no, I am not proposing to "improve" (ie, mess up) articles on Rome, since if I think a change is bad here I also think it's bad in other places. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not bad, User:Pinkbeast. Not on our account. If you'd like to draw conclusions, I can provide a background to what life was like in those days, and we can debate what we thought the outlook and treatment was of people when they were shipped of in loads of 50,000 to work without pay. Otherwise, "to reflect what references actually say," we are not supposed to do anything else. What is bad is when we pick and choose. Thousands of random people flick over this article. You want them to pick and choose? It would be like a food fight wouldn't it? ~ R.T.G 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And by the fact that you say "the BBC isn't" and then go on to say exactly what I am calling you to see, is worth noting. ~ R.T.G 14:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
What references actually say is that they were involuntarily made indentured servants and that often the result was akin to slavery. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are the most explicit and reliable of the sources, so far provided, on the specific item of comparing and equating the fate of those 50,000.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] If you had inclination to understand what life was like for the English themselves then, you'd not even ask for a resource to debate the difference between, mass forced expatriation for lifelong unpaid servitude, and slavery. ~ R.T.G 15:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Irish Confederate Wars#Technically not as sold as a slaves but as indentured labourers. In that section I wrote the following:

As this more modern source makes clear "indentured labour" was not a walk in the park:
They [indentured workers] were treated in every way like slaves and could, for instance, be bought and sold among different planters. Unused to the climate, they were less robust than blacks (three of them were considered worth one African) and were often treated worse. The owner, after all, had his slaves for life, but he had only a few years in which to get as much work as possible out of a European labourer. If the indentured workers were not criminals, they were often prisoners of war, and for a century and a half the islands were to receive a continuous supply of men who had supported doomed enterprises.
—Metzgen&Graham (2007)
  • Metzgen, Humphrey; Graham, John (2007). Caribbean wars untold: a salute to the British West Indies (illustrated ed.). University of West Indies Press. pp. 24,25. ISBN 9766402035. 

It does not just happen in the 17th century with indentured labour. In the years after the Irish Potato Famine and the start of the American Civil War, there was a glut of Irish itinerant workers in the United States. They were so desperate for work they could be hired for a pittance, so Irish labours were employed in the Southern States, to do work considered too dangerous for slaves, because a slave was a capital investment, and a casual Irish day labourer did not have to be paid if he did not complete his shift for whatever reason including maiming and death. See:

  • Goad, Jim (1998). The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies Hicks and White Trash Becames America's Scapegoats (reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster. p. 68. ISBN 9780684838649. 

-- PBS (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consensus to label the Irish as being "slaves", as it now says in the article. The references cited in support, like the ones on this talk page, tend to use the word without telling why that definition fits in a historical or legal sense (the lack of Irish servitude in perpetuity seems to be at least one strike against using the term). The sources were culled ad hoc from Googling and often display considerable historical inaccuracy (James II is often mentioned acting officially in 1625). Also, Cromwell doesn't seem to have had great personal responsibility for the treatment of the Irish after the conquest. There is also the fact that the considerable fatalities of that time affected the English, too (i.e. due to disease, not just genocidal policies). Is it time to change the text of the article back? Dhtwiki (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References are a mess[edit]

I have been moving the references on some articles into the reflist template. It's a good edit, especially on long articles with references supporting controversial facts. It gets the walls of text out of the prose in the edit box and the improvement is obvious after that.

However, on this article I could not do it. Some of the books have been split into a reference section for a similar purpose. But for each author there are sometimes up to three books. reference in the body of the text does not say which book the pages they quote are from. However, it is worth noting here because it's a history article and access to those books will be easy for some at their local libraries or personal collections. There were some other technical errors with the refs including groups of refs place in ref tags and separated with semi colons. I got to about number twenty and stopped. I didn't write them down, sorry, but it could do with some checks, particularly clarifying which author reference is for which book. ~ R.T.G 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)