The Rest Is History - 54. Cromwell and the Protectorate

Episode Date: May 20, 2021

Did Oliver Cromwell save Britain from tyranny or was he a killjoy and military dictator? Paul Lay, author of Providence Lost: the Rise and Fall of Cromwell's Protectorate joins Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook to discuss the short-lived British Republic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thank you for listening to The Rest Is History. For weekly bonus episodes, ad-free listening, early access to series, and membership of our much-loved chat community, go to therestishistory.com and join the club. That is therestishistory.com. Cromwell, our chief of men, who through a cloud, not of war only, but detractions rude, guided by faith and matchless fortitude, to peace and truth thy glorious way has ploughed, and on the neck of crowned fortune proud, hast reared God's trophies. That was John Milton writing a sonnet in honour of Oliver Cromwell in 1652, three years after the execution of Charles I, and shortly before, to Milton's horror,

Cromwell would become Lord Protector. With me is noted roundhead Dominic Sandbrook. Dominic.brook. Dominic. Thanks for that, Tom. That's a lovely introduction. Would you agree with Milton in lording Cromwell in that way? Are you a fan?

I am a fan, actually. I think you can probably divide people, can't you, into... There was that old line, you know, what side would you have fought on at Marston Moor? And I think you can divide people into Cromwellians and non-Cromwellians. I'm definitely a Cromwellian. In my view, Tom, and this is a big statement, Cromwell is my favourite British political leader. Even better than Stanley Baldwin, in my mind, and Jim Callaghan.

I think Cromwell is right up there, right at the top. I love Cromwell. I think he's so interesting. So interesting. Favourite in the sense that he's the most interesting British as in as in you admire his achievement I think actually you know what both I I uh and I admire him for the fact he had he was in a position that no other Englishman has ever been in other than Richard Cromwell his son being law protector having supreme power and I think by and large um you know power reveals character and I think it revealed

him in a pretty good light actually I think you know it didn't corrupt particularly he didn't behave especially badly now I know Irish listeners are already you know throwing their phones across the the room in fury but by and large I'm a big big Cromwell fan okay well as you suggested there are lots of people who would disagree with that verdict on Cromwell I mean he he was the leader of one side in a civil war so obviously royalists by and large tend not to be keen on him. And you mentioned Ireland, and in Ireland, his name is basically Mudd. So we need someone to guide us, I think, through the complexities and the ambivalences and the ambiguities, not just of Cromwell's life, but of the period that we're particularly focusing on in this episode,

which is, I guess you'd call it the British Republic, the period from Charles I's execution up to the restoration of his son, Charles II. And there is no better person to provide us with that guidance than Paul Leigh, who is editor of History Today, but also, more saliently for our purposes, author of a fabulous book, Providence Lost, The Rise and Fall of Cromwell's Protectorate, absolutely garlanded with praise. So Paul, thanks so much for coming on and joining us. And can you help us out, Cromwell, hero or zero? Well, neither, of course. I agree with Dominic to a certain extent that he's the most fascinating character. But he's the most fascinating character.

But he's also, and I think this is what makes him even more fascinating for me, is that he's incredibly elusive. And I think this is why the man lends himself to mythology. There's always an awful lot to fill in with Cromwell. I mean, this is a man who's almost nothing for the first two thirds of his life. He barely exists in the records. And then suddenly, at the age of 43, he becomes, or he sets out on a career as one of the great cavalry commanders in British history, and we can discuss where he ranks there. But then he becomes this, as Dominic says, this almost unique figure. And I think he is unique because Richard is not remotely comparable, really, apart from the position he holds for a brief while.

He is this unique head of state who tries to create something that I think is born of a kind of moral and theological endeavour. And in some sense, the legacy is a continuous one. The monarchy never returns, even after the Restoration, in the sense that it was before that. There's never a kind of Charles's personal rule or anything like that. Parliament becomes in the ascendant over that time. There are still things to be worked out. Essentially, he does define us and i think the battle that he waged the ideas that he waged are still resonant now and i think in particular um of gs elliott's poem a little hitting in the

four quartets when he talks about the fire and the rose that compete within the nation and compete within ourselves often i think like the gilbert the Gilbert and Sullivan line that every boy and girl alive is a little bit liberal or a little bit conservative. And those are the battles that we see in Cromwell to a certain extent, but in the nation that Cromwell was so important in forging. But Paul, isn't the interesting thing that he's not a little liberal or a little conservative, that either side can claim him and that's what's so fascinating about him, that he contains all, in a way, he contains all English politics, don't you think? Yes, I think he does, because I think there's a lot of people on the left who regard him as heroic because they see him as a Republican for that alone. And there are of course of people on the right who seem as

important because he's an English nationalist he has this profound idea of English exceptionalism he is a defender of religious liberty too I think I mean Catholics obviously would counter that but in terms of his commitment to a really quite capacious religious settlement, certainly by the standards of the mid 17th century, he's a pretty remarkable figure. And he also has this central role

as one of the creators of the British Army, too, that I think is probably sometimes forgotten. And the fleet, didn't he? Yes, well, that's important. He had a battleship called the Marston Moor,

which I always thought was very cool, which I learned from your book. There's so many battleships named after Moors, are there? No. And actually, you know, talking about Marston Moor, it suddenly strikes me that perhaps for people who aren't entirely on top of all their various Civil War battles and so on, perhaps we should just set key things up before we get on to Cromwell himself and the Protectorate and everything. Dominic, you're very good at that. Just quickly give a very quick breakdown of sum up the Civil War in 30 seconds. Go on. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Tom. Well, I did manage to sum up Game of Thrones last week without Twitter going wild. So, well,

the English Civil War is a tough one. And is it the English Civil War? Well, that's a whole different question. Okay, well, Paul, you have to forgive me for this. So basically, you're in 17th century England or 17th century Britain. Charles I has been ruling on his own without parliament. He slightly sort of seems to fancy himself as an absolute monarch. But at the end of the 1630s, everything kind of goes wrong at once.

So there's a big rebellion in Ireland where there's been sort of discontent simmering and there's sort of Catholic resentment, sort of English Protestantism and stuff. At the same time, there is a rebellion or a war breaks out with the Scots over a prayer book that Charles is trying to impose. So two of these three kingdoms are, as it were, in revolt.

The war goes very bad against the Scots. Charles needs more money. And the only way he can get more money is by recalling Parliament. But Parliament doesn't like him. they're at loggerheads he raises his standard and says you know rally to me against parliament and civil war breaks out between king and parliament so between cavaliers and roundheads for people who are familiar with those terms so you've got this sort of multi-faceted civil war it's a kind of very long story short the first civil war goes very badly for charles he But at that point, the parliamentarians don't want to kill him and they don't want to sort of kick him out or anything. They believe in the monarchy. They just want a better deal with

Charles. So they're talking to Charles. They've got him kind of locked up and they're trying to get a deal with him and they think they're going to get a deal. But Charles goes behind their back. He does a secret deal with the Scots, so one of his three kingdoms, but sort of his old enemy, as it were. The Scots pile in against the parliamentarians, and there's now a second civil war. So this incredibly complicated story has taken this Game of Thrones star twist.

Well, the second civil war, but the parliament wins that as well, thanks to its new model army, of which the sort of leading light is Oliver Cromwell. So now they've won two civil wars. They've decided that they can't do any sort of deal with Charles because he's proved himself utterly untrustworthy. He is, as they call him, the man of blood, the traitor to his country, sort of agent

of the Antichrist who has betrayed his people. So he's got to go. So they decide to cut his head off. They have a show trial. Off goes his head. And then that raises the question, well, what on earth are we going to do next and that's the point at which this great new model army cavalry general and former parliamentarian sort of um firebrand oliver cromwell fully enters the stage and is this also the point where we can go back to paul dominic

i think paul should now do all the rest of the talking yeah okay that was that was slightly longer than expected but very very, very good. OK, so Paul, just give us the brief sketch of what happens when Cromwell and the negotiators of Cromwell and others like him with Charles fails. Charles goes to the block, his head's chopped off. What then happens? Just a very brief group of people making a very, very bold decision, but not knowing what to do next. And so there's an urgency immediately to settle the country. That's not particularly different. That's not particularly difficult. England, after civil war, like all countries after civil war, seeks peace and wants some kind of stability. Remember, this is the age of Hobbes. And even Hobbes, the former mathematics

tutor to the young, exiled Charles II, for example, is one who finds his peace with the regime. So there's a lot of people who want to reach a settlement. But there's also a great deal of opposition. There's some in Scotland, although on the whole, the English Parliament is reasonably well disposed to their fellow Calvinists on the home. But then there is the issue of Ireland, which is the first great act, the conquest of Ireland, that takes place with this Commonwealth that's been announced. Here is the bit where we are in a kind of English Republic, a Commonwealth.

The House of Lords has been abandoned. Parliament is in the Ascendant. The monarchy is gone. This is the closest we get to that. But within that, Cromwell is a primus inter paris, someone who merely has a substantial military and political role because of his deeds in the past, whether that's at events like Naseby and in the Scottish campaign. And so he has this reputation, but as yet, he's not a political figure beyond his role in the trial and execution. So there's still a lot to decide at this point. All kinds of possibilities are possible. And Paul, can I jump in and take us back a tiny bit? So Cromwell at that point, he'd been an MP before the war. He'd been a fantastic cavalry commander during the war.

But what kind of a man, I mean, if you'd met him, what kind of a man was he? I mean, obviously he was born again, wasn't he? He's a sort of born again christian but he's also earthy and and disputatious and often quite angry and i mean i mean if you know if you walked into a room and there he is what's he what's he like as a man well i don't think he's a natural or at least what we think of as a natural 17th century puritan uh this is a man who drinks this is a man who smokes this is a man who enjoys music he seems he's no intellectual but on that note great question from spike searle who says in what way did cromwell's early cricketing career influences later religious beliefs i think that's very important to

yeah he was very keen on cricket and he played football apparently according to when he was a young man but then of course he's notorious for for banning cricket on on the sabbath day and that kind of sums up the uh the tension doesn't it um bowler batsman all around you know i don't think he's into that did he represent the minor counties i was going to give his birthplace i'm not sure i don't think he goes into that. Did he represent the minor counties after he's given his birthplace? I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know. But I mean, he's an Ironside, I guess.

So probably a batsman. Well, it makes clear why he'd wish to go to the West Indies, I suppose, and gain possessions there. Maybe, I don't know. Maybe cricket was introduced at that point. The first Caribbean tour. I think we're getting distracted here. Anyway, the point I wanted to make was

that he's perfectly capable, say, of liking cricket or music or painting or whatever. But at the same time, he's clearly, religion is everything to him. How do we square that kind of paradox? Square that circle. I suspect that in the end, and I think this is something that Dominic alluded to, this idea of a sea green incorruptible, in many ways, I think is true to a certain extent. What God decides is what will happen anyway.

I mean, he is perfectly attuned to the idea of predestination, that it's all being worked out anyway. He's simply looking to see if he's on the right side and doing God's will. And within that, there's a fair amount of space for a certain kind of galvanist. If one is saved, one is saved anyway. And I don't think he's the kind of malicious Puritan in terms of pleasure. I mean, there are great stories about him being at his daughter's wedding where he's drunk and he's dancing and he's joking. There are, you know, the famous account, whether it's true or not, about him flicking ink at the time that the register was signed. You know, you have to take these things with a bit of a pinch of salt.

Again, we've got this mythology, the elusiveness of Cromwell, that openness of the record. But from all accounts, this is not a man who fits in with the very, very austere Puritanism that is associated with this time in figures such as, praise God, Bearburn, or even Milton, who I think was perhaps a more formidable Puritan in that kind of moral and behavioural sense.

Before we get back to the seriousness of the politics, I have to ask before Tom does, is it true that he was kidnapped by a monkey? Small. And is it also true that as a boy, I'm certain this is false, but I'm sure I read in the Lady Bird book that he had a fight with the future Charles I.

You did. They were both in the Lady Bird book. They were in the Lady Bird book. I remember it very well. That's the book where only the Irish take against him, I believe. But I have seen no evidence, and I don't think anyone ever

has done. But I wonder where that story comes from. Well, our mutual friend Ted Vallance wrote about it. He did? I haven't seen that. He traced it back, I i think to an early 19th century source yeah no that's what you'd imagine yeah let's go back to we got on sidetracked from the politics sorry paul i took you off with my my monkey my monkey talk i took you off from the politics of the protectorate so let's go back to where we were there's this sort of gray area

isn't there charles had a head cut off they kind of is who's going to run britain the the army the the parliament or whatever and at that point cromwell's just a soldier basically is he he's not really a political figure is that right well he's a political figure in the sense that he's played a very prominent role in the trial and execution of charles i mean i think you see a big shift between attitudes of certain parliamentarians particularly cromwellwell, rather during the Second Civil War. Because I think by that time, this idea of Charles as a man of blood emerges.

And even people like Cromwell, who are partial to the idea of monarchy, are not at all ideological Republicans, are sick to the back teeth of this man's duplicities. And they see the only way out of this is through trial and then ultimately execution of this man of blood. But as I said, they've absolutely no idea what to do next. They have to deal with, for security reasons alone,

with Scotland and Ireland. But then once Ireland is conquered, to the extent that Cromwell's involved in it in 1650, they then have to reach for a settlement. And there is a kind of deal that's reached with the Parliament that it will make itself redundant, essentially. But that doesn't really happen. And I think that's the point when Cromwell really emerges as the dominant figure. And Parliament is just thrown out, it's reduced, it's denuded. And suddenly, some kind of new settlement is needed. And there are various experiments with this. But the first one of those parliamentary experiments is the one I think that reveals just how much the figures around Parliament, after a Puritan leather trader called Praise God Bare Bones.

And what this is modelled on, and this is the brainchild of Thomas Harrison, who's fought alongside Cromwell, a general, who is the leader of a group called the Fifth Monarchists. Bizarre beliefs who, to cut a long story short, see England as being the inheritor of the great empires of the past. And that if they fulfill their political and theological plans in England, Christ will return as this fifth monarch and that will be the end of it all. So, I mean, you get a real sense of the kind of bizarre beliefs that you have here. There are pretty extreme, even by the time,

and certainly are not ones adhered to by the English public at this point. And you have, it's called the Nominated Assembly because it's supposed to be filled with 140 people who have the root of the matter in them. Good, sound, Puritan

figures. They're supposed to be nominated by the individual churches, independent churches, they're actually not. Most of them are decided by the council of state which along with common it's basically running things at this point um and it's by no means as mad in terms of the practices as you might think from the way it's modeled on the old testament sanhedrin it puts through quite a few reforms of the law that are much needed. There's always quite a few lawyers

around the parliamentary side, but it rubs up against the army. And here is the rub, because everything in the end that takes place during this decade is ultimately dependent upon the power of the army. If the army doesn't want it, it doesn't really happen. And Cromwell is the significant figure because he's the person who has the kind of trust or enough trust on both

sides for them to invest in with the prominence he has at this point. However, the nominated assembly does fail because it doesn't give enough money to the army. And this is a common theme throughout this period. And so another figure emerges instead of Thomas Harrison. Well, it disappears to the margins here. And the person who emerges is the figure who's very much seen at this point. and we're talking about 1653-54 here, who is John Lambert, who has had a military career almost as spectacular as Cromwell's, who spends most of the time, while the nominated assembly is bickering, coming up with the world's first written constitution, which is the instrument of government and what that does among many other things is reconfigure the trinity of king lords and commons into a new trinity holy or not of protector which is the position that will be offered to cromwell knowing that he's unlikely

to take the crown and you have instead of the Lord's a council of state with people like Lambert around him the great and good of the regime and then you have parliament which is pretty denuded by this point so that's the settlement to which Cromwell agrees and that is when the protectorate begins. And is it fair to talk of Cromwell there as a dictator? Is that too strong? I know people did talk at the turn of the 20th century, looking abroad, they thought, oh, Cromwell was a sort of prototype for modern dictators.

But do you think that's wrong? Or do you think he is a military strong man in a sort of recognizably modern mould? No, I don't think he is. I mean, you're absolutely right. It was a common analogy with the dictator of the 1930s. And in fact, it was one made by, among other people, C.V. Wedgwood, who was a great historian of this period, who recanted very publicly at a meeting of the Cromwell Association many decades later and said she was completely wrong. It's very difficult to argue. One, because whatever is false, Cromwell does continuously seek a settlement and constantly refers to the idea of healing and settling, which I think is sincere. The way he goes about it is not always sincere. Hence Blair Worden's wonderful phrase about Cromwell being practised of not knowing. So there's definitely this slippery side to him that can be absent when things happen, despite his fingerprints being all over them. But military dictator, even if the desire is there, and I don't think it is, there is not the means of anything like a military dictatorship in a 17th century European state.

I mean, it just isn't there. The communications and the technologies, the kind of surveillance that you need, it's just not possible. So, Paul, basically, the protectorate is a kind of protracted exercise in trying to work out a framework that will enable England, and indeed Britain, I mean, because it's for the whole of Great Britain, isn't it, for the first time, to function, but also to put down solid foundations. And in the long run, that is what dooms the British Republic, is that the foundations are inadequate, basically, to cope with Cromwell's death. And so after Cromwell's death, we've got a question here

from Matthew Butcher. Was the restoration inevitable or is there a realistic path which keeps England as a republic? Well, it wasn't a republic. I mean, I think that's part of the problem. When Cromwell's there, it's not a republic. It's a protectorate. It's a quasi-monarchy. It's something akin maybe to a kind of Venetian settlement. And people like James Harrington, who wrote Oceania as an advice book to Cromwell, were obsessed by classical republicanism and Venetian republicanism, as was Milton and this idea of an elected doge,

an elected protector, which was always an option. But I'm afraid that the entire population was never really convinced of an alternative to a monarchy. The old bottom, the ancient constitution, is constantly referred to by people in Parliament when they refer to the Norman yoke, for example, and the ancient constitution. But to most people's minds, even many of those in Parliament, the ancient constitution is the monarchy and the Commons and the House of Lords.

That's the way it works. And we simply have this interregnum where an alternative is attempted. But I think there's, and I think this is interesting about Cromwell here, is that as a military figure, he's incredibly decisive. When you read the records of his actions at Naseby,

for example, this is a decisive figure when you look the records of his actions at Naseby, for example, this is a decisive figure when you look at him and his battles. But I think as a political figure, he's never really sure what the settlement should be. And he's offered various settlements, particularly by people who emerge towards the end of the protectorate, or at least towards the end of his life, who are very concerned to find the settlement. They know that this is a man in his late 50s, he's wracked by various illnesses, he's had a tough military life, as well as the stresses of this new kind of government, and he's not going to be around forever, and probably not much longer. And so a settlement has to be found. And I think there are basically four alternatives that are presented to him. The first is that he just accepts kingship. He becomes Oliver I and that becomes an hereditary position.

To the House of Cromwell. But that is not hereditary. It's an elective kingship, rather like Venice. The same for the protector. You could take on this title of protector and continue it and make that hereditary or again elective. And the truth is that at the end, when he's on his deathbed during that great storm on the 3rd of September 1658, and says the settlement is that it will be the position of Lord Protector will pass on to Richard. So essentially, the choice is a Lord Protector of an hereditary nature. But that's the position that we are. And so by the time Cromwell dies, the settlement, the succession has not been decided on. In many ways, that's quite reminiscent of what happened with Cromwell's own hero Elizabeth I when you have a great deal of uncertainty as to how you settle succession. And so Richard briefly serves

as law protector he's not really on for it there's kind of general meltdown and people basically decided well if we're going to have a monarchical system we might as well get the original Stuart family back and Charles II returns so we've we've had a very nifty gallop through the history of the of the protectorate and and building up to that. I think it's worth saying sorry that in terms of Richard it's it's not a question of whether Richard's up for his role I mean I don't get the sense that he is although he's incredibly long lived. So that would have been good. He lives well into the 18th century. But I think the fundamental goes back to what I said earlier. He hasn't got the support of the army.

Right. Okay. That's the point. Okay. Okay. So, and on the theme of the role that the army plays, that's something perhaps that we could come back to. We should come back to look at Cromwell's relationship

with the radicals, the levellers, which is also kind of key theme. And we must come and look at his role in Ireland as well. But I think for now, we should quickly go to a commercial break. And when we come back, we'll look at Cromwellian controversies. I'm Marina Hyde.

And I'm Richard Osman. And together we host The Rest Is Entertainment. It's your weekly fix of entertainment news, reviews, splash of showbiz gossip. And on our Q&A we pull back the curtain on entertainment and we tell you how it all works. We have just launched our Members Club. If you want ad-free listening, bonus episodes and early access to live tickets, head to therestisentertainment.com. That's therestisentertainment.com.

Welcome back to The Rest is History. We are debating the good old cause of the 17th century, the life and times of Oliver Cromwell, the fortunes of the British Republic, with me, top roundhead Dominic Sandbrook, foppish cavalier Tom Holland, and actual Cromwellian expert, who knows what he's talking about, Paul Ley.

So Paul, can I kick off with a question? We were just talking about the course of the Protectorate and the whole story of the 1650s before the break. So when people like sort of Tony Benn, Labour politician, or sort of generally sort of left-wing people say this was a missed opportunity for republicanism, are they basically wrong? I mean, from your last stuff,

it sounded like you thought there was never really a possibility of a genuinely sort of vaguely democratic republic. It was always going to be a monarchical solution one way or the other well i don't think it's inevitable um the people like tony bennett many historians are very good historians identify with the levelers indeed in my paperback version of the book there is a picture of me in Burford graveyard um yeah I know it well with the three um troopers there and don't just to interrupt another of your quick resumes what who are the levelers oh golly okay so the levelers they are uh members soldiers in the new model army um they've been basically told they've got to go to Ireland they don't want to go but also they're kind of on the as it it were, the left wing of that movement.

They are much more democratic. They want to sort of, they want to get a vote. They want a more, what we would recognise as a more sort of democratic Republican settlement. Cromwell is Blair and the Levellers are Corbynites. These analogies are very, very difficult. The Levellers believing something like they are building a new Jerusalem. And that's the kind of language that has been a part of an English radical tradition ever since, if not before. And Tony Benn would appeal to that. And it's a real tradition.

And Cromwell to people like Benn is a kind of a problematic figure, right? Because he's a villain to Ben. Certainly Ben said that Dennis Healy was the Cromwell of the 1970s. Yes, and in many ways, I'd say Dennis Healy is the far more attractive figure, but certainly the more cultivated figure, and certainly, actually, the more effective political figure. But we can debate that at some other time. And in 1650, so a year after charles first death cromwell is

getting ready to cross to ireland and the army's camped at burford and there is a essentially this kind of mutiny isn't there's a mutiny isn't it they're in the church aren't they they're all in the church and and what does cromwell do well he takes three of them out and he shoots them against the wall at burford church and and yes and there's a kind of memorial to them, isn't there? There is, yes. And it's an interesting memorial because we talk about Cromwell being all things to all men, because it's not just Tony Benn who finds Burford this place of pilgrimage. It's also a place where conservative Brexiteers such as Daniel Hannan eulogise as this birthplace of the free-born Englishman, which of course is the phrase we associate with the most famous of all the Levellers, John Lillman. So it's funny that we say that because I don't necessarily see this

idea of free-born Englishman being a kind of right or left-wing thing. It can appeal to both sides. Again, we're back to that theme of the fire and the road. Right. And so at Burford, essentially the mutiny gets put down. And one of the things that the Levellers are objecting to is the very idea of crossing to Ireland. So there's a Leveller leaflet that's distributed to the New Model Army

on the eve of the crossing to Ireland. It says, whether Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, William Duke of Normandy or any other, the great conquerors of the world were any other than so many

great and lawless thieves, which is a kind of very, I mean, that really is a radical idea, isn't it? The whole, you know, the very foundational idea for the crossing to Ireland is presumably for Cromwell

that God wants him to do it, that the Irish rebels are... No, you're... There is that. People always ask me what it's comparable to. There are certain parallels of the conquest of Ireland that does take place under Cromwell and preceded Cromwell and happened long after Cromwell. And comparisons have been drawn by some historians, British historians, comparing it to Nazi atrocities or what happened on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, these kind of comparisons there of genocide. What I think it's most like, most comparable to as a historic event, and I think this is what the Levellers recognised

and the critics of it recognised, is the Norman conquest. The Levellers and people around them talk about the Norman yoke. They talk about the ancient constitution. That bit I just quoted mentions William. I mean, that's what the allusion is to. Absolutely.

And what happens, what turns out, is wholly akin to the Norman conquest, whereby, and this is attempted in Scotland as well, but far, far more perniciously and aggressively in Ireland, is the Anglicisation of these islands of the islands of britain and ireland but to make them entirely english and the ideology behind that i suspect is that and this goes back to people like harrison but i think it's something that cromwell believes too and those around him is that the english are an elect nation. Just as Israel was the elect

nation of the Old Testament, England is the elect nation of the New. So Cromwell is like Joshua leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. I mean, it's kind of that's what we're talking about. And he simply refers to such allusions. So we've had a host of questions, as you can imagine, about Cromwell, his role in Ireland. So we've got Seamus MacArthur. As a Northern Irishman, we often hear of Cromwell's brutality against the Irish. How much of this is true? How much is exaggerated? What was the source of this animosity? Was it a straightforward religious drive against Catholic Irish? We've got Luke Hennessy with no shortage of other available candidates. Why has a very special place in Irish hell been reserved for Cromwell for so long if the

atrocities were exaggerated? Okay, I so were they were the atrocities exaggerated um if there were atrocities what was cromwell's role in it um is the uh the black tones in which um island tends to paint cromwell justified um if not why is he such a seen as such a kind of a diabolic figure? This is quite a question. I know. I'm sorry. No pressure. What I tend to think about this is that I don't know whether you've been to Cromwell's house in Ely, in which he spent, in the 800 years that the house has been built,

he spent 20 years connected to it not even living there but it is cromwell's house and i think there's a kind of analogy there with cromwell in ireland cromwell spent about nine months in ireland his actions were decisive sometimes I would argue barbaric, particularly in his treatment of Catholic priests in cold blood. But the facts have often been mythologised, as Cromwell has been. And I don't think that there was one question from one person on Twitter, I noticed, who said, why is Cromwell celebrated in England, but not in Ireland? And I thought, he's not celebrating England. He's almost as controversial character in England as he is in Ireland.

I mean, this is a person that still opens up souls. I mean, we'll talk about the statue, but there's much more than that. He's a deeply divisive character. And I've been reminded of it just in the response to this book. But if we look at what happened in Ireland, I think the key to the ruthlessness that Cromwell displays is something to do with this ruthlessness of the army that takes place after the Second Civil War, when they're avenging blood, as they see it. And the avenging blood in Ireland is the Ulster Rebellion, is the Irish Rebellion of 1641, which is exaggerated hugely at the time, but is real. And it takes on the kind of propaganda in England. And I think the rebellion tells or signals to Protestants in England, the people who will fight Charles in the Civil War,

that the people over there are beyond the pale. Sorry for the allusion there, but literally beyond the pale. And therefore, it is time to settle Ireland once and for all. So, Paul, by the standards of war as practised on the continent, is Cromwell's behaviour regarded as excessive even by that? Or is he behaving according to the accepted conventions of war? People behaved pretty badly in the 30 years' war, though, didn't they? Oh, absolutely.

I mean, his defenders always say, well, you know, he was behaving according to the conventional standards. I mean, was he? Well, let's have a look at, I mean, the only way you can really begin to answer this is looking at what happens. James Butler, who's the Earl of Ormond, has brilliantly put together an Irish and Royalist coalition in Ireland, the aim being to secure Ireland as a base to attack England and to bring Royalism back. That's the kind of simple

equation that he's dealing with. And by about, he's got a strategy together by March 1649. So this is only two months after the king's been executed, if that. He's got a campaign strategy together and appears to have the significant numbers to be able to take Dublin. And in fact, by the end of June, he's about two miles from Dublin. Now, the decisive turning point here, I think, is that the defeat by michael jones at rathmines of this royalist irish force that seems to me to be the decisive victory in this whole campaign that's the second of august because it allows it stalls orman's campaign to one but it allows the new model army, 12,000 battle-hardened, theologically and ideologically primed and experienced British soldiers into Dublin. Plus, they have £100,000 in cash that's given them by parliament so this is a serious force but it's also a force that goes into ireland with cromwell's firm instructions that any soldiers caught looting

will be hanged it goes in with a kind of core of discipline androhida is the place that's always mentioned this is a significant town being fought over again and again by both sides. The gateway to Ulster. And Ormond appoints Arthur Aston as the governor of this place. And when Cromwell emerges with his army to be sieged, he's offered the means to surrender. Now, this is the normal process at this time. It's seen endlessly in the Thirty Years' War. It's quite common elsewhere. If you offer the defenders the opportunity to surrender, they will be let go. Aston does not surrender, and his two and a half thousand men or relatives

are there defending this. And in the end, it falls to Cromwell's troops. Now, there are real atrocities there. The burning of St Peter's Church is particularly important. There are people burned alive there. And the sanctioned execution of Catholic priests, which is sanctioned, I believe, all the evidence pointed by Cromwell, is plainly a war crime. Unacceptable. There's no evidence that there was a real slaughter of civilians, although, of course, in such an event, civilians may well be caught up in this.

And there's no solid evidence of a massacre of civilians. That's where we are. But there is also an element of ethnic cleansing there because the statement is said, you know, once this place is cleared and everyone's left, honest people should come here, i.e. not the Catholic Irish, but it should be left to settlers,

Protestants, English settlers. So we see soldiers killed there. That's, you know, whatever we think of it now, that's part of the deal of war as siege warfare was done then. But priests and friars being executed in cold blood, absolutely not. And it was perceived

as such even then. He then goes south because as Drogheda was the gateway to Ulster, Wexford is the kind of gateway to lenster munster he arrives there in october um the port's still open and in fact it's it starts badly because his forces comes out in marshland a lot of people get dysentery um and david sinnett who is the kind of wexford governor, he again is asked to surrender. And in fact, many of the townspeople, civilians actually leave.

An English bombardment begins about 10 days later. And Sinnott actually asks for a parley to discuss terms. He's got his own little agenda there. But the commander of the castle, James Stafford, as far as I'm aware, surrenders and English troops enter. And there is some resistance in the town centre of Marcus Great. In fact, this is where Cromwell loses control of his troops. Again, we see something like 2,000 dead. I mean, these estimates are still being looked at all the time. Priest again, no justification whatsoever.

But just about nine days later, I think it's 19th 20th of october uh in new ross which is another important settlement lucas taff who's the governor commander there surrenders on pretty generous terms and the garrison is actually allowed um to depart with its individual weapons not the cannon artillery that kind of stuff but it can take its own muskets, whatever it has. And so you see a real difference there. You can talk all day, is Cromwell doing this to encourage others not to? Has it worked, in other words, the violence at Drogheda and Wexford? Has it worked at New Ross?

Has this message been sent out that this happens, that this is the fate that will happen? Who knows? What I would recommend, and I think there is still a great deal of work going on for this entire campaign and the settlement too, is there's a very good new book edited by, among others, Martin Bennett called Cromwell and Ireland, New Perspectives, which is just about as up to date as a scholarship goes with both British and Irish historians. Patrick Lenehan in particular has done very valuable work looking at the numbers there because the numbers are always contested. And so, you know, that's important. But the point is, so what is the conclusion? I mean, basically, the question is, is there something excessive

that Cromwell is doing both by the standards of the age and by the standards of other English campaigns over the course of Irish history, that explains why he has this demonic status in Ireland? Or is there something extraneous to that that explains Cromwell's posthumous reputation? Well, I think it's a bit of both. I mean, Cromwell is part of a process, a significant part of a process. But if you look at the 1580s, if you look at the Nine Years' War from 1593 to 1603, during the Elizabethan settlement and the Jacobean settlements,

they are... Yeah, they're far-blooded. They are far, far worse than this. And also, even if the Cromwellian settlement is worse, it's not necessarily Cromwell's work. Cromwell is only there for a relatively brief time. So, you know, by all means, pinpoint blame him there. I mean, we can see that with the treatment of the priests and the friars. It's absolutely appalling. You can see that kind of action in St. Peter's Steeple, in Drog in drada you can see all of that but he's part of a continuum and i think rather as he is in england this kind of bogeyman this is what happens if stability is there he's become a cipher for all the other things and it's why i use the analogy of the house he's in the house 20 years but this house has an 800 year history and he's there in um ireland for a brief period of time although

obviously he also instructs the way uh ireland is settled there too but we're talking about an 800 year history here um we might as well just blame elizabeth the first you know this is a good chance to take the story forward a bit and talk about cromwell's memory because obviously in the 19th century cromwell becomes this incredibly controversial and interesting figure. The Victorians take him up and there's the, I mean, Stephen Clarke, who's a friend of the show, history teacher himself. He's asked questions about Hammo Thorncroft's 1899 statue of Cromwell. And of course, there was a huge controversy about whether there should be a statue of Cromwell at the Houses of Parliament. I think Lord Rosebery, the liberal prime minister, ended up paying for it.

The Tories were dead against, the Irish were dead against, which shows what a reputation Cromwell had at the end of the 19th century. And even now, it's a little bit controversial. So do you think to some extent Cromwell is this Victorian, you know, our Cromwell that we have a sense of is a kind of Victorian invention? Because, of course, the Victorians remade him in their own image and used him as a sort of, I don't know, as a template for their own political controversies, didn't they? Well, I suppose it all starts with Carlisle, really, and the idea of this kind of great man, this significant figure.

But you're absolutely right. He's embraced by liberals, but it's the liberal party. I mean, I don't mean liberals in the way that we use it now i'm talking about 19th century liberals like lord roseberry who did indeed pay for the statue and it was deeply controversial at the time this is the time of you know debates about home rule you know ireland is absolutely to the fore of british politics at this time and so this is deeply controversial but you see i mean going back to left here, you see the embrace of this figure Cromwell by people like Isaac Foote, Michael Foote's grandfather, part of this liberal dissenting tradition of which Cromwell that you have here. I think people like Isaac Forte, they really looked at what they were dealing with, would have been absolutely horrified by the kind of ideals figure Cromwell is that I mean I thought I'm sure you were struck in the same way that over the course of the Brexit debate suddenly Cromwell's name was

everywhere again and it was being invoked by people who were siding with the primacy of Parliament and in all kinds of ways and endlessly being mentioned in Irish commentary on Brexit as well and it's as though also people used him Tom to say they said you know that kind of when he goes into Parliament says in the name of God go and all that red seteers was saying that about parliament under theresa may weren't they and it's kind of like whenever um maybe british democracy comes under strain cromwell the memory of cromwell bubbles up whenever relations between britain and particularly england and ireland come under strain again, he is remembered. And perhaps, you know, that's his fate to be a... Yes, I think it is his fate.

I mean, that's what he symbolises, is this break between Ireland and Britain. I mean, that's one of the things he signifies. But everything about him is surrounded by myth, obfuscation, and often error. I mean, Dominic's just mentioned, you know, probably the most famous words he ever mentioned in the name of God go. He never actually said them. I mean, you know, I mean, according to John Morrill's new collection, they seem to derive from a forged version of Cromwell's speeches. That's that's 1767 or something. Paul, next you'll be saying he never said warts and all.

You know, there is so much about which we believe we know about Cromwell, but which we don't know. And this comes back to, you know, there's a terrible ignorance about Cromwell, for better or worse, on both sides of the Irish Sea. I mean, we all know Chesterton's old phrase about the difference between British and Irish history. The Irish can never forget it and the English can never remember it when we're talking about Irish history.

But I think this is this absolutely crucial point in British, British and Irish, European, indeed even global history, is one that's still pretty much a blank slate as far as the vast majority of British people go, perhaps even Irish people. And it is something that I think really needs to be amended if we're to understand who we are. Paul, you often don't like modern parallels. And yet, I read in your book an excellent modern parallel, which I heartily approve of, where at the end of your great book, you say, you draw a parallel between Cromwell and Margaret Thatcher, both East Anglians, nonconformists, you know, very decisive when they needed to be very divisive.

Yeah, thought of as austere, but actually incredibly fun-loving. Do you think that, so talk to us about the Margaret Thatcher analogy, because I think that's one that most listeners will find extraordinary. Well, I was being quite mischievous when I did this. Obviously, it is absolutely true that I don't like to draw modern parallels too closely, but I couldn't miss the Margaret Thatcher one, because, you know, as you say, there's this East Anglian non-conformist philo-semite. We forget Cromwell's role

in resettling Jews in England again. Not that he did this for humanitarian purposes. He did it so that the Jews would convert to Protestantism, Christianity, in the most perfect of all Christian polities. But decisive in war, certainly. Problem with the Irish, that's certainly there as well. There are all kinds of parallels. I was being quite facetious, but I think the most interesting parallel of all, and we talked earlier about the Anglicisation

of both Scotland and Ireland that was the plan of this. But I think in the end, even the English people disappointed Cromwell. He described them, and I love this Cromwellian phrase, as under circumcision but raw. In other words, they were on a kind of path to a holiness, a perfection, but they weren't there yet. And indeed, they were a long way off. And I think there was that kind of element with Thatcher. There's a wonderful phrase, I can't remember who did it, I don't know whether it was Vernon Bogden or someone else, who said that Margaret Thatcher wanted to create a country in the image of her father, the Puritan Alderman Roberts,

and created one in the image of her son. And there's a kind of parallel with Cromwell, because who ultimately follows him? For a brief while, it's his son, but in the end, it's Charles II. And there's this kind of inability to really read the desires of the English people. So the English people, they'd let down Cromwell, they'd let down God, but worst of all, they'd let down themselves. I was about to say, they let down me.

And they let down Dominic. On that note, we're going to bid you adieu, to thank Paul. He was lamenting the fact that people don't know much about Cromwell or what they know about him is largely mythic. To get around that problem, I do recommend buying his wonderful book, Providence Lost, The Rise and Fall of Cromwell's Protectorate. Thanks ever so much. We will see you next week. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

Thanks for listening to The Rest Is History. For bonus episodes, early access, ad-free listening, and access to our chat community, please sign up at restishistorypod.com. That's restishistorypod.com.