Wednesday, 6 November 2019

Heroes with feet of clay

There is a lot of frustration with politics at present and this is often expressed on social media by quotes by or about figures from history,  Guy Fawkes and Oliver Cromwell in particular at the present. I would argue that this can often be unhelpful or, worse, downright deceptive.

Guy Fawkes: it's something of a joke that he was the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions. However I'd beg to differ if anyone genuinely considers that Fawkes' actions constitute honesty. New Scientist published an article on 5 November 2003 explaining how the Gunpowder Plot would have devastated London. The study concluded that, as well as destroying Parliament and killing everyone inside, the explosion would also have:
  • Destroyed Westminster Abbey.
  • Razed everything to the ground within a radius of about 40 metres.
  • Within 110 metres, at least partially destroyed buildings.
  • As far as 900 metres away, blown out some windows.
I have projected this onto a map of Liverpool, the city of my birth, placing the hypothetical explosion at the iconic Bombed Out Church. The two circles represent the 110 and the 900 metre points. The damage would have reached St George's Hall, the docks, and would have extended way beyond both cathedrals and the Philharmonic Hall. Bearing in mind that buildings were considerably more flimsy in 1605, the damage would be much greater than now. Fires would have inevitably followed and the Great Fire of London may have happened 61 years early. It's safe to assume that in the closely packed houses, perhaps tens of thousands of ordinary Londoners would have perished. It would have been one of the worst mass murders in English history, and because Fawkes was a gunpowder expert, we cannot excuse him on the grounds that it was overkill by an amateur - quite simply it would have been a deliberate and utterly callous act of terrorism.
[Click on the map for a bigger image.]
Oliver Cromwell: his famous speech dissolving the Long Parliament on 20 April 1653 has recently been extensively reproduced on social media:
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
"Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
"Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
 An impressive speech, certainly, but should we be impressed by the man? I would argue that he was a deeply flawed leader whose faults seriously tarnish (and in my opinion outweigh) his positive achievements.
  • After dissolving Parliament, Cromwell ruled England as a dictator, instituting the only military regime this country has ever known.
  • He ruthlessly suppressed popular movements among his own followers such as the Levellers and the Diggers because they challenged the property rights of the land-owning class from which he was descended
  • It is not known exactly how many people were massacred by his troops in Ireland, but it may have been as much as a fifth of the population. The Irish historian Micheál Ó Siochrú describes the slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649 as ranking among the greatest atrocities in Anglo-Irish history, and considers Cromwell to have committed of war crimes, religious persecution and ethnic cleansing.
  • Less important, but still significant, is the fact that as Lord Protector he was paid £100,000 per year, equivalent to more than £22 million today. In contrast, the UK prime minister is paid just over £151,000, which in real terms is about 0.7% of Cromwell's remuneration. Snout in the trough on a massive scale.
  • Cromwell did not believe in democracy, despite the mistaken view held by some on the Left and the dialogue written for his character in the 1970 film Cromwell.
Quoting historical figures out of context can be deceptive and in an era of political turbulence, as now, can cause people to form inaccurate judgements. History isn't a collection of soundbites to be deployed as and when needed. As a qualified history teacher, I feel strongly that we can learn a lot from the past - however, politicians often cherry-pick bits from history to suit their short-term political agenda, but they're not alone - on social media, some ordinary people do just the same.

A failure to learn from the past is a lost opportunity to avoid endlessly repeating its mistakes. Sadly, that is what happens all too often.

2 comments:

  1. Martin Woodford writes:
    "I can’t understand maps of Liverpool when we are talking about blowing up Westminster. You can’t accuse me of being London-centric, it’s just that this is where Westminster is.
    Similarly with Cromwell’s pay. There is no comparison with May, Cameron and Johnson: Cromwell was a deeply flawed character....... who was fighting, rightly or wrongly, a ‘civil war’. And do not be mistaken, prime ministers, with few notable exceptions, leave office incomparably richer than when they took it up and then go on to prosper.
    As you will have understood, I am not impressed by this missive."

    Thank you for your comment, Martin. Yet again, I have to apologise for the malfunctioning reply software.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Martin: thank you for finding fault. I'll now explain why you're wrong.

    Liverpool: I put together that map a while ago (long before I decided to write this post) to show friends here in Merseyside the extent of the potential damage. It's very clear, even if you don't know Liverpool, how widespread the destruction would have been - and that is the point which you seem to have missed. Handy hint: the big circle is 1.8km in diameter (1.12 mile), as can be deduced from the text. Plus there is that 500 metre scale bar on the map itself.

    Cromwell was not fighting a civil war when he was Lord Protector. It had been over for years when he accepted that post, but even if it was still raging, I don't see how that's relevant to my point about the huge amount of money he was being paid. Churchill did not receive a comparable amount to Cromwell during World War II. In real terms, all our PMs, including those you mentioned, have been paid less than 1% of what Cromwell received. Again, point missed.

    Finally, since you like nitpicking, it is not a missive.

    As you will have gathered, I am unimpressed with your comment.

    ReplyDelete