WI: Cromwell emigrates to New England
- Thread starter Abulabbas
- Start date
There is a very good TL about this, although yhe outcome is very different from what most of us would expect: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-bloody-man.208138/
A tidied up version is available from Sea Lion Press
www.sealionpress.co.uk
Along with sequel though I have no idea if @EdT is planning on doing any more in this tl.
THE BLOODY MAN | Sea Lion Press
www.sealionpress.co.uk
Along with sequel though I have no idea if @EdT is planning on doing any more in this tl.
It would completely change the internal dynamics and politics of the New Model Army (and thus of England as a whole), especially if someone like Colonel Rainsborough becomes the ATL Cromwell.
But since Cromwell was not the main leader during the early-to mid phases of the ECW, the outcome would most likely remain a Parliamentarian victory.
But since Cromwell was not the main leader during the early-to mid phases of the ECW, the outcome would most likely remain a Parliamentarian victory.
Last edited:
A tidied up version is available from Sea Lion Press
THE BLOODY MAN | Sea Lion Press
Along with sequel though I have no idea if @EdT is planning on doing any more in this tl.
Huh, interesting, I shall endeavour to give this a read.
Without Cromwell might we see the Royalists and the Roundheads reach some kind of negotiated peace? I know the execution of Charles I was highly controversial amongst the Parliamentarians and not many men wanted to see their erstwhile king bereft of a head. Would some form of an early constitutional monarchy be a likely outcome?
With regards to the colonies, how might they fare? Considering how brutal Cromwell was towards the Irish, could we see him visit that fury upon the Native Americans?
The problem with this is Charles I not anyone on the Parliamentary side. He had absolutely no interest in making any genuine compromises and was repeatedly caught trying to regain his former absolute position even after losing the Civil War and being imprisoned. Eventually Parliament was going to get bored of this.
Cromwell wasn't in anyway unusually brutal, certainly by continental European standards he was positively restrained. Any plausible commander is going to authorise or at least preside over equivalents to Drogheda and Wexford. As for European behaviour in North America could it get any worse?
No, because Charles I would have kept fighting on again and again. He had zero intention to negotiate.
And by the way, New England is not a place for dictatorships. Anyway, a capable man like him could be elected to become a major leader there. Cromwell would not have his way to the OTL extent.
IMO he could have united all New England colonies to invade New Netherlands in the ATL Anglo-Dutch War (the same plan IOTL was voted down by Massachusetts).
The situation is much more nuanced than that despite popular legacy and historiography and stereotype. Whilst Charles I did have the inclinations of an absolute monarch, he wasn't one and neither did he pursue trying to become one. Charles I by Richard Cust and Charles I and the People of England by David Cressy go into more detail, but in essentiality, what Charles I was seeking was a clear definition between the powers of his royal prerogative and the powers of Parliament. Indeed, during the Oxford Parliament, his ideas were not all accepted, and a clear definition of power division between the King and the Oxford Parliament existed according to even Parliamentarians. Unfortunately how that system worked is lost to us due to the burning. Charles I did intend to negotiate, but according to Cust decided not to the moment he heard the Parliamentarian's offer, which was essentially giving up all of his power. Even prominent parliamentarians like Edward Massey were shocked and expressed outrage when the leaders of the Parliamentarian sides basically wanted Charles to give up all power, leading to his prominent defection. His case was one among many in that regard, and such a case is shared by many like the Earl of Pembroke, William Fiennes, the Earl of Northumberland, both the 2nd and 3rd Earls of Warwick, Henry Lawrence, the 1st Earl of Anglesey etc. Despite popular myth, both Charles I and Parliament were intransigent and stubborn. Charles I wanted a clear definition and division of power whilst Parliament wanted a ceremonial fully limited monarchy. For a historically parliamentarian country like England whose constitution was not fully defined, Charles I's demands were extremely hard to fulfill, and for a country with a parliamentarian yet very active monarchy like England, Parliament wanting to actively make Charles I only a ceremonial monarch was unacceptable in the 1600s. Even the Kings of Poland-Lithuania, which were the most weakest monarchs in terms of power had much higher royal powers than the offer given to Charles by the parliamentarians. Thus, the failure of the negotiations and its fault lies with both Charles I and Parliament, and simply blaming him is mostly stereotypical images not wedded in the actual history of the time. To make Charles I and Parliament come to a suitable compromise, it is highly likely that the Oxford Parliament model (however it worked, sadly lost to us) is probably the model that would need to be followed. Certainly that idea had a lot of support if not for the New Model Army staring intimidatingly at any supporter of the plan iotl as well.
This is largely apologia for Cromwell. Even the 30 Years War, the nearest most disastrous war claimed the lives of around ~10 - ~15% (~9 million casualties out of a population involved of ~78 million) of Central Europe. By contrast, Cromwell's conquest of Ireland took the lives of 1/3 of all Irish peoples, at least double of one of the most horrific wars in European History. Considering 5% of England, Wales, and Scotland were documented to have perished under his reign, his reign under peacetime was also much bloodier than the normal regimes at the time, perhaps barring the Mughal Dynasty. By any standard, he was not positively restrained. Even JC Davies, a well known historian Cromwellian apologist admits that his rule was particularly bloody, even compared to the European standards of the time.
That is extremely deterministic. Going by that level, every White British colony thereafter the American Revolution should have been afforded things like the Constitutional Act of 1791, yet Australia and New Zealand remained Governor led dictatorships until the late 1820s. In a similar vein, the Constitutional Amendments of 1791, 1799 and 1802 should have prevented such an oligarchy like the Family Compact rising to power in Canada, yet it happened. Under the right circumstance with the right men in place, anything can happen.
Kick
I'll leave Charles I's character and intentions for a different thread. We can all agree that both at the time and ever since different people have had different views of his behaviour but it's indisputable that vast majority of Parliamentarians felt he wasn't someone who could be negotiated with by the end. The only question was what to do with him.
Between 1/4 and 1/3 of the population of Ireland died between 1641 and the end of the fighting. Cromwell himself was only in Ireland between August and May. Those 9 months were after 8 years of brutal grinding fighting between 4 factions (Confederate, English Royalist, English Parliamentarian, Scottish) that had seen widespread use of scorched earth tactics. When do you think most of the dying happened?
Post 1660 it suited everyone to blame Cromwell and the English Parliamentarians more broadly for al the bloodshed, they were safely dead and irrelevant while the descendants of everyone else had to live with each other in Ireland. But just because something is politically convenient doesn't make it true.
Between 1/4 and 1/3 of the population of Ireland died between 1641 and the end of the fighting. Cromwell himself was only in Ireland between August and May. Those 9 months were after 8 years of brutal grinding fighting between 4 factions (Confederate, English Royalist, English Parliamentarian, Scottish) that had seen widespread use of scorched earth tactics. When do you think most of the dying happened?
Post 1660 it suited everyone to blame Cromwell and the English Parliamentarians more broadly for al the bloodshed, they were safely dead and irrelevant while the descendants of everyone else had to live with each other in Ireland. But just because something is politically convenient doesn't make it true.
While it certainly became convinent to blame all of the failings of the Protectorate on Cromwell by the Restoration Government, including the Scottish Church Crisis, the Welsh Rites Controversy and the Cornish Risings etc, the massacre and brutal killings of Irish men and British citizens happened under the direct supervision and approval of Cromwell. By that logic Stalin was not in the Gulags and Hitler was not in the Concentration camps.
Quoting JC Davies, a Cromwellian apologist, from his book Oliver Cromwell (Reputations) ch.19 'Cromwell was well aware of the massacres that were being conducted throughout Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England in his name. Though Cromwell disagreed on some aspects with the killings, the massacres and murders had the direct approval of the Lord Protector. During the last years of his reign, Cromwell personally directed executions from Westminster as well, leading to the killings of prominent Irish, Welsh, Scottish, English, and foreign figures in the country and their families. According to reports filed by Cromwell's own government, they killed over 400,000 Irishmen, and around 200,000 people throughout the island of Britain, creating a colossal number of at least 600,000 killed under Cromwell's authority, or in simple plain terms, wiping out one-third of Ireland's entire populace and killing over 8% of the entire population of Britain and Ireland combined.'
The funny thing about Davies, is that like most apologists, he doesn't dispute the numbers, but he tries to justify the killings.
At the time, as per John Keegan, the normal casualty rate in wars in Europe hovered between 2% to 4%. Mughal and Qing (both known for being extremely brutal and ruthless) casualty rates hovered normally at 5%-7% according to William T. Rowe. By all standards, Cromwell was especially brutal.
Last edited:
Thing is, we have to look at the context of the negotiations. The Oxford Parliament occurred at a time when balance of power between the two factions. By 1648, Charles had lost the war comprehensively, yet, he still wanted to dictate the terms and wanted them to be his way - which the winning Parliamentarians simply could not accept. In the end, he just kept fighting and the rest was history.
Well, yeah, perhaps "unlikely" would be a fitter word.
Btw, the Family Compact was not surprising given fact that it was driven by the elites of the United Empire Loyalists who adhered to the Loyalist tradition and wanted to distinct themselves from America.
At the time, he kept fighting because the entire idea of convicting a Sovereign was entirely foreign throughout the Christian world. Charles I was right, even acknowledged by Parliamentarians later on, that Parliament had no legal authority to overextend their bounds of power and raise troops, and to convict the Royal Family because there was no legal, political or historical precedent for the situation. The situation was very much ideological. Charles I was fighting for Equal Division of Power, *some* of his supporters were fighting for an Absolutist Government, and Parliament was fighting for a full Parliamentarian government. It was an ideological war just as much as a political war for all sides involved, which was why Charles I didn't stop fighting until his family was directly threatened. And he didn't wish to dictate terms. He never did in that regards and is a stereotype developed by the Whigs of the early 19th century. All of his offers were up for negotiation but Charles I always insisted that a proper division of power take place, which the Parliamentarian Leaders refused on basis of the ill-defined English Constitution. As stated, both were intransigent on their main demands, but Charles I showed himself more willing to negotiate the other points than Parliament.
yes.
Genocide is genocide, although in the case of 17th Century Ireland is closer to Crimes Against Humanity/Ethnic Cleansing (recent example of the same sort of thing being the Bosnian conflit and the greater Yugoslavian Civil War) than outright genocide. The actions taken in the 1640s-50s still echo down through the Centuries, to this very day.
While denial of Genocide is a Bannable offense, in this case, I'm going to view this in the "best possible light" and ratchet thing back a step and go with a Kick.
See ya' in 7.
I apologise for any lack of clarity in my post, I certainly wasn't denying or minimising genocide, as I said between 1/3 and 1/4 of the population of Ireland in 1640 was dead by 1652, that's a genocide in any book and that mass death was in large part the fault of people born on the eastern side of the Irish Sea.
I just think from my own research into the topic that the post 1660 "official history" emphasised the responsibility of the safely dead Cromwell over the British Royalists who were fighting the Confederates with absolutely brutal scorched earth tactics for 8 years prior to Cromwell's arrival. The idea that that didn't cause an enormous number of dead is genocide denial in my opinion.
I think if you recognise a genocide happened the next most important thing is to recognise who is responsible for it. In the case of Ireland in this period my opinion for what it's worth is that it's 50% English Royalist, 25% Scots Presbyterian (though they did 80% of the ethnic cleansing, see Ulster) and only 25% Cromwell. Obviously other people will disagree but I think that's a legitimate historical debate which this board is all about.
Edit: and I'd like to thank @CalBear for listening to and accepting my explanation and apology.
Fairfax was already the lead commander IOTL, especially in early-to mid-war, this would not change.
The ATL equivalent of Cromwell could be Ireton, Lambert or Rainsborough.
Rainsborough becoming war leader would have caused substantial changes to late-war politics, since he was a Leveller. The Leveller movement would have stopped being a fringe in such a scenario.
Ireton's career might be very different in the absence of Cromwell, being that OTL he was his son-in-law.
I agree. That's why Rainsborough could well become a serious contender ITTL.