Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cromwell-cookbook

by pepys • 5 years ago

68 81 5 years ago

seanieb3• 5 years ago

” the anonymous editor peppered the text with political, personal, and sexual slander aimed at tarnishing the Cromwell legacy.”

Stopped reading at this point. If the author doesn’t understand that the Cromwell legacy is already tarnished due to war crimes I doubt there’s going to be much reason to continue.

andi999• 5 years ago

Thats a bit of an anachronism, isnt it? The concept of war crimes was developed a few centuries later, wasnt it?

barrkel• 5 years ago

The atrocities are remembered in Ireland as atrocities all the same.

James Joyce wrote in Ulysses, 1922, “What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text God is love pasted round the mouth of his cannon?”
Winston Churchill’s view in The History of the English Speaking Peoples: The Age of Revolution, 1957, is perhaps less artful, but succinct: “By an uncompleted process of terror, by an iniquitous land settlement, by the virtual proscription of the Catholic religion, by the bloody deeds already described, he cut new gulfs between the nations and the creeds…. Upon all of us there still lies ‘the curse of Cromwell.’ ”

Quotes propagated from https://simanaitissays.com/2018/11/28/oliver-cromwell-purita...

arka2147483647• 5 years ago

At the time, it may have been that the ”Jury is still out”.

You have to remenber that things we take as granted nowdays, may have been divisive at the time.

seanieb3• 5 years ago

Murdering women and children, even at that time, was considered bad. Shocking eh.

rusk2• 5 years ago

Thing to be mindful of with Cromwell, is that to some he’s a hero and to others he was a monster. A dichotomy heretofore yet unresolved after centuries.

classified• 5 years ago

He was a hero to his fellow monsters. Maybe he was inevitable, as some situations just breed monstrosities. That doesn't make his deeds less atrocious.

dash214• 5 years ago

You are probably thinking about Ireland. Antonia Fraser's biography covers this in detail. Many things that happened under Cromwell's command were standard practice in siege warfare at the time. Of course, by modern standards it's atrocious, but that tells us more about the 17th century than about his personality. He also believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was responding to Irish atrocities against English settlers.

mellosouls2• 5 years ago

He was voted tenth greatest Briton in a national poll there in 2002 - that's a lot of people to be describing as monsters.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

Churchill was first - another figure who splits opinion depending on where you ask.

Either way, its always better not to demonise those you argue against, whatever you feel about who they are championing.

Turning the opposition into "monsters" is what led to the pogroms and massacres these histories are full of.

Macha7• 5 years ago

I would hate for people to be looking at Hitler in 100 years going:

"Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and the repercussions of his actions led to the european union and european peace eventually. And the 20th century was such a violent time, standards were different, they had two huge global wars. You had Stalin, Mao, countless african warlords, people were used to cruel dictatorships"

There are already people today who look at Hitler as a hero. We don't look kindly on these people.

dash214• 5 years ago

That's fair, but how about Napoleon? He was viewed as a monster at the time, for starting needless wars that killed (only) tens of thousands. Later on people took a more balanced view. So, Hitler's reputation should not be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean nobody should be rehabilitated.

sonthonax4• 5 years ago

However, historical relativism really only makes sense when we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding cliched, our political-moral lens was largely crystallised by the French Revolution, where ideas of universal equality really emerged as a political force. We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti.

Until something like that happens again, we will probably always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman.

Also there’s the problem that Hitler didn’t revitalise the economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn’t even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk. Germany’s economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of the 30s looted by Stalin.

wrongdonf• 5 years ago

I was suffering from super bad bipolar episodes and a general mental health crisis recently when I came across a documentary about Cromwell. It was so inspiring to see someone struggle with the same problems and overcome them, accomplish such great things, and do it all before it was even recognized as a legitimate illness. I really came back from the brink thanks to that coincidence.

DenisM4• 5 years ago

Which documentary is that?

fiftyacorn• 5 years ago

This would make a good horrible histories sketch

dash214• 5 years ago

There's not surprisingly a lively debate about Ireland in these comments. A quick reminder about some other aspects to Cromwell's political career:

* Lobbying to allow Jews back into England (officially, there probably were unofficial Jewish residents already).

* Pushing for religious toleration.

* A big expansion in primary education, which was later reversed under Charles II.

* The development of science by the Invisible College around Samuel Hartlib, later to become the Royal Society.

* Fighting the Dutch and Spanish.

rusk2• 5 years ago

You could argue that his legacy is still alive and kicking, interfaced in Northern Ireland.

Also:

* Hitler fixed the roads

* Communist Russia got the first Satellite into space

Grimm14• 5 years ago

That's neat. Cromwell's legacy is his treatment of the Irish the rest of his legacy can be safely disregarded.

"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.[11] The Parliamentarians also transported about 50,000 people as indentured labourers.[2]"

We don't go but, "oh Hitler painted pictures too".

Edit: Swap "painted pictures" for "built roads", or "helped progress rocket technology", my point is unchanged and in fact strengthened.

carmen_sandiego• 5 years ago

I'm not sure the things listed are the same as 'painting pictures'. I'm not even saying you're wrong about Cromwell, but at least take the points fairly.

justin66• 5 years ago

* Pushing for religious toleration.

Those who want to learn more about Cromwell's "push for religious toleration" might want to start by picking up God's Executioner by Micheal O Siochru. I won't spoil it. ahem

wbl2• 5 years ago

The choice is not Cromwell or liberal democracy. The choice is Cromwell or the Spanish Inquisition with Ireland as gateway to England.

dash214• 5 years ago

Tell us more. I've been quoting from my reading, but I am sure it's one-sided. Your perspective would be a valuable complement.

_emacsomancer_3• 5 years ago

"Pushing for religious toleration" in this case would be sort like talking about the Taliban as religiously tolerant because they pushed for toleration of Wahhabism.

(And the choice of comparison here is not carelessly chosen: like the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan for idolatry by the Taliban, Cromwell presided over the destruction of numerous medieval monuments/artwork for the same reason.)

dash214• 5 years ago

I'm not an expert, but in Antonia Fraser's biography, Cromwell comes across as a remarkably tolerant person for his time. He was anti-Catholic, but this is in the context of 150 years of religious conflict including, within living memory, an attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. And yet he negotiated with the Pope to secure freedom of private worship for Catholics in exchange for the Pope not preaching rebellion to English subjects. Of the many bigots on his side, he once said "Nothing will satisfy them unless they can put their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there." He spoke for toleration: "I had rather that Mahometanism were permitted amongst us than that one of God's children should be persecuted." He set up a committee to debate what latitude in religion should be allowed: it's clear that the answer was going to be much wider than anything allowed under Charles I. (Not surprisingly, since the Independents in the army were fighting for the principle of freedom of worship - for Christians - and against any church establishment.) I've already mentioned his protection of the Jews.

It's important not to confuse Cromwell with "the Puritans" in general, still less some of the extremists in the army. He never had absolute power, and he had to tread carefully while reining in many of his supporters.

pjc503• 5 years ago

Pushing for religious toleration.

Er, no, rather the opposite.

Fighting the Dutch

I don't see why this is in the positive column; English political dysfunctionality was so bad that thirty years after Cromwell's death, the English establishment invited the Dutch to invade, welcomed them, and had them fight the Irish (again). William of Orange is still celebrated by anti-Catholic groups.

notahacker2• 5 years ago

This list misses the actual reason various historians have sought to rehabilitate Cromwell or at least paint him as a complex figure: he was a symbol of middle class rebellion against arbitrary monarchical power and the emergence of Parliament as the centre of British politics, having risen from relatively humble origins to play a leading role in the military defeat of and political decision to execute a monarch seen as exceeding his powers over Parliament.

Of course the great irony is that he then arbitrarily dismissed Parliament himself (though the record doesn't suggest this was his actual goal) and was so unpopular in power that the restoration of the previous king's son to the throne on his death was inevitable. He certainly wasn't the poster boy for the development of British democracy, but he influenced its development massively - positively and negatively.

There is a decent chance that Parliament would have overthrown and executed Charles I without his military skill or enthusiasm for regicide (just like similar massacres in Ireland would likely have taken place without his -disputed- involvement and apologia) as he wasn't even a significant figure at the beginning of the conflict, but those whose name and public statements becomes most known always get the credit and the blame.

DenisM4• 5 years ago

I think you have to start citing your sources. My sources suggest that Cromwell was hugely popular and pretty much not allowed to leave his post, which is why the restoration did not happen until after his death. He was even pushed to accept the crown himself - that's as popular as one could get. Also he was not into regicide, and King Charles I was only axed because he stubbornly refused to pare down his ambition from absolute monarchy to anything less, and with full agreement of the Parliament.

Sources: The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan.

pbnjay• 5 years ago

In case you just wanted to read the contents: https://archive.org/details/courtkitchinofel00unse

11thEarlOfMar• 5 years ago

The recipes start on reader page 74.

yawaworht1978• 5 years ago

He should have died for many other things, but eventually they came up with treason and......heresy. So much for implementing religious tolerance. As soon the tides have turned, catholicism was the new trend and predictably, he would be guilty of heresy by catholic definition.

Of course all the religious banners and labels always have been an excuse for power and money grabs.

Cromwell has a place in history right next to people like pol pot, Himmler and other such figures.

Opponents of Oliver Cromwell published his family recipes

Related Stories