Thank you for the quote. About time someone challenged Mr. Cromwell's apologists on both sides of the Irish sea. You are right. He was a bit of a bastard. If we're honest though, he was not the first or the last.
This was not entirely a bad film (mostly because of Harris) but like most of English history in film it glosses over the facts and embellishes the emotive character. Harris is brilliant as always but I am still uncomfortable with this and many other English/Hollywood historical dramas. They understandably tend to take various degrees of artistic license in dealing with historical fact but that can have dire results. Which is why the discussions boards about this film do not actually discuss the film. Rather, we find ourselves discussing the character of Oliver Cromwell himself and evaluating his actions - and this film had little or nothing to do with that reality.
I am an Irishman. But I am not always proud to be Irish. I cannot excuse our neutrality in World War 2. I cannot justify anyone blowing Warrington to smithereens in my name. But these are facts I live with and I hope to learn from them. I lived in the UK for a three years - after the Troubles were over, more or less - and I was, for the most part, treated well. However, I was shocked by the real lack of knowledge about or acknowledgement of England's less glorious past. Similarly, English academics employ the same moral blind-spot in their work. I lived outside Derry during the Drumcree stand-off and had my face punched by a kindly policeman who was busy showing some 'Tadghs' what was what when I walked by Reading this thread has actually been a little more frightening. And I am forced to ask what versions of History are taught and learned in the UK.
Forgive this rant. Many will not like it. The reason films like this can have dire consequences is that some simpleton eventually comes along and says something incredibly stupid like "Oliver Cromwell is a hardass MY HERO" - which is not too different than acquiring all your knowledge and morality from a Cornflakes box. It only takes a few irrational leaps of a limited imagination before a fellow idiot says: "the Irish have always been a pain in the arse to us and the sword is the only lingo thay understand." And what follows is the far more insidious comments like "It's a shame because not once were we ever encouraged to take pride in our countyr or our noble history and this has turned me to really distrust our liberal-apologist government" (from a wise, experienced and educated 16 year old)..
Would it be slightly more disturbing if German's started applying this logic to Adolf Hitler? Or would that be different because they're not British and therefore not endowed with divinely granted superiority? I sincerely doubt that Israeli historians are writing apologist histories of the Third Reich to sate German academic appetites in the way that Irish historians are re-imagining Irish history to appease British academics.
Cromwell can never really be a fluffy lovable heroic figure be it history or film (and that is where this film failed) - and that is especially true if you are Irish. He was not much different than Adolf Hitler for Ireland: A genocidal little brute who corrupted the ideals of a Republic with misguided religious zeal and was solely motivated by greed and spite in his treatment of Ireland and the Irish - as with every English administration thereafter although they were less honest about their inhumanity. I don't think he was particularly evil - just English, a bigot, a racist and inexplicably secure in his self-appointed superiority. Nevertheless, he was a brilliant and forward-thinking soldier/tactician/politician (like Hitler, largely due to his administrative ability, his ruthlessness and the men he surrounded himself with) and he was essentially right about the monarchy and class in England (in theory if not in practice). He did some things that were evil. He did some things that were good but by evil means. Yet, he was an English patriot, a rationalist and a Republican despite his fall into despotism. However, what matters to me is how Ireland is treated in these discussions. And when you add Ireland to the equation, Oliver Cromwell is not the heroic or the tragic figure depicted in this film.
Before people assume that I am yet another ignorant Mick from the bogs with an axe to grind, I studied history at an Irish university and I must confess that there is an understandable effort on the part of Irish Historians to redeem Cromwell and other English figures in history and dispense with our persecution complex - but it is considered bad manners to refer to this as historical revisionism. Sadly, that is exactly what it is: Historical Revisionism that is equally malicious as that of earlier Irish Republicans but considerably more insidious. Anybody who questions this is written off as a recidivistic Republican who has Semtex buried under the garden shed. Pity really. But it

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

It is quite depressing that our government here in the UK are using political correctness to remove anything remotely offensive regarding Britain's historical past. And the Department of Education are making that so glaringly obvious by constantly revising the GCSE & "A" level syllabus, expunging certain aspect of what the British Empire did; even demonising certain past heroes such as Cromwell, Wellington and even William Wilberforce & Churchill!!!
No wonder children today have only a limited understanding of British History as controlled and censored by our fascist government. The truth is out there, as is historical objectivity. But this government only wants you to conform & follow a set process.
So much for the UK being cradle of Democracy!

I've been a fan of Cromwell for a while and I'd like to see this movie. The thing about Oliver Cromwell is that what he did, he never did for his own personal gain. Even when he made mistakes, it wasn't out of malice. He wanted to bring freedom to Britain and improve the lot of the common people. His legacy survives to this day; although his revolution ultimately failed, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 changed our consitutional and governmental system forever and was based on Cromwell's morals.
I'm sixteen and I've never learnt about him in history which is a shame but that's what our education is like at the moment, government propaganda playing down the role of the Empire in history. It's a shame because not once were we ever encouraged to take pride in our countyr or our noble history and this has turned me to really distrust our liberal-apologist government.
Anyway, Cromwell was a good old boy.
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family

And let us all remember that when the catholic Spanish Armada was destroyed by the storms around the British Isles, a lot of the wrecks were washed up on catholic Irish beaches and were robbed and the survivors murdered.
Not many peoples in this life always cover themselves in glory.
Cromwell did what Kings of England had always doneput everyone to the sword who was thought to be against them.
"I was playing the RIGHT notesjust not necessarily in the right order"

Washington had a lot more on his plate than Cromwell too. He was in charge a the entire army and had to deal with Congress (Even worse than Parliament since at least they had several centuries of practice running things) as well as the many people in the army who disagreed with him. Not that I'm saying he was a better general than Cromwell but he certainly wasn't terrible at it. It's incredibly impressive that he managed to keep the army together to begin with nonetheless get them to fight. And yeah, the inexperienced soldiers did ruin a lot of his battles. They could have stood up a whole lot better at New York if they'd had NMA guys there instead.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
-Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805)

Cromwell and his English Army conquered both Ireland and Scotland.
A great tactician and strategist
George Washington doesn't have anything on Cromwell, he was a shockingly poor tactician, look at the number of times his US Army got pwned by the British? Granted, British soldiers were superior, more of a reason.

The book you're thinking of is by Tom Reilly, who was a history lecturer at Dublin University at the time he wrote it. He researched it by going back to the primary sources,i.e. the accounts left by the eye witnesses of the time, as any decent historian is supposed to do, and discovered (surprise, surprise) that the so-called 'massacre' at Drogheda was nothing of the sort; no women, children or non-combatants were killed, and only those men 'found in arms against us'. The rules of war at the time (and for a couple of hundred years afterwards) dictated that Cromwell was perfectly within his rights to execute these men, as they had rejected (with accompanying insults) his call on them to surrender, forcing him to take the town by storm - which was considerably bloodier for all concerned, attackers and defenders alike. (Wellington did exactly the same thing to a town which refused to surrender during the Peninsular War - Badajoz I think - but you don't hear much criticism of him, even from the Spanish!)
This conclusion - that by the standards of the time it was neither a massacre nor an atrocity - was extremely unpopular with Reilly's fellow countrymen It turns out that the atrocity stories (slaughtering priests, raping nuns etc) only started to appear in the 19th century with the growth of the Irish Independence movement, and appear to have been totally fabricated.
Next thing you know, Reilly's left Dublin Uni. for a post at an American University did he jump or was he pushed?
Who says history doesn't mean anything these days.
And before someone has a go at me for being English, I'm half-Irish and half Welsh!

Another good book is 'Cromwell; Our Honorable Enemy' written no less by an Irishman (whose name escapes me) who puts a good case across that Cromwell wasn't the monster he is depicted as.
"What did i think of her? Four letter word beginning with C. You know, cold!"

If you are still curious, then a recent book by Geoffery Robertson might be of interest, check out "The Tyranicide Brief"
I'm a Brit who was brought up on the old 'Cromwell bad, Charles1/Restoration good' idea. This book changed my thinking; enjoy.

This message has been deleted.

I didn't realise I was born when it was invaded.[/700 year war]

thats what happens when you invade another country that doesnt give up.

Oh, and "resistance" is another term used by them to describe blowing up Warrington.

I was using "Occupation" as the Royalist/Irish term. It's the one several people I know use when referring to the northern counties in order to justify their support for 'civil disobedience' and the IRA's resistance.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Education is rather neutral from what I remember (I was a teacher for a short while but it wasn't my subject). Though to be honest it's not actually particularly focused upon by our education system, merely glossed over along with the rest of our couple of thousand year history+europe+world. Usually though anyone who gets their head chopped off does so because they're a "bad man", whereas the only 'school' fact I remember about Cromwell was that his brain reputedly weighed several pounds (the average being 1.4lb or something).
Revisionists can't do much more to Cromwell to be honest. He was the first leader to say "warts 'n all" and led a number of very well documented campaigns. At no point did he 'dress up' how he was, and fought vigorously against those who would bring him down - which is why the massacres and similar are patently out of character.
The "British" view overall is that he was a hero to one and all, the first 'low' ruler (i.e. a man of the people). It's unlikely that even with Charles II coming back to the throne that he could have put any weight into having history amended (given he was little more than a puppet for the Lords etc) and with such a wealth of information.
The Irish view (originally founded and based upon 'Royalist' propoganda, since reinforced through the occupation and continued troubles) is to the contrary obviously.

Well, George Washington was a hardass too. Don't believe me? Just check this out:
http://members.aol.com/ChipCooper/george.html
By the way, what do you British think of the whole Cromwell/Charles I incident these days? In school, do they teach you that Cromwell was the bad guy and Chuck I was just an enlightened ruler who got a bum deal from some uppity Protestants? Or is it vice versa, like Cromwell was a man before his time who was laying the groundwork for a more democratic England? I would think that after the reinstatement of the monarchy, they would've had a little revisionist history written casting Cromwell in a bad light, being that they dug him up, cut his head off, and put it on a pike for years and years. Talk about overkill.
/curious Yank

Im of irish background myself,and also a military history fan,so ive always kinda of had a lot of respect for the guy,even though i know full well what he did was pretty heavy.
But that was what it was like those days,and he did i believe offer terms to the towns before he took them,by the laws of war in those days,once that offer is turned down,then the citys can be sacked by the troops involved,and take any plunder they can find.
But of course they probaly went way over the top,many accounts tell of them slaughtering nuns,priests etc in the town square,while none of the officers at first tried to stop them.
But even alexander,napoleon,wellington had there bad moments and there troops many times ran amok,so i guess it happens in all periods of warfare,even to the so called greats.

This message has been deleted.

'British' cause? Would like to think it was a little more than Britain at stake in both cases.

Well said Alan.