Europa Universalis IV announced

[Razgovory]

Wasn't Cromwell a rebel?

Wow that is a strange question.  The King left town and raised an army, Parliament did not rise up in revolt.  Not sure who technically the rebel is there.

It's only difficult because Cromwell won, and his people wrote the history.

[Valmy]

It's only difficult because Cromwell won, and his people wrote the history.

Unless the murdered every Cavalier to the last man I am pretty sure that is not true.

[Razgovory]

It's only difficult because Cromwell won, and his people wrote the history.

Unless the murdered every Cavalier to the last man I am pretty sure that is not true.

That's not actually required.  Cromwell and William didn't kill all the Irish but there's not an enormous corpus of Catholic Irish viewpoints printed in Britain in the aftermath of those wars.

[Valmy]

That's not actually required.  Cromwell and William didn't kill all the Irish but there's not an enormous corpus of Catholic Irish viewpoints printed in Britain in the aftermath of those wars.

There is not an enormous corpus of Catholic Irish viewpoints about much of anything from those time periods.  Yet somehow the history of those wars is not endless praising of Cromwell. 

[Sheilbh]

It's only difficult because Cromwell won, and his people wrote the history.

Nonsense. Monarchy won and wrote the history. There's barely any positive views about him until the 19th century. There was a very controversial debate when Parliament decided to erect a statue of him outside the House of Commons in 1900. Even now there's the odd attempt by MPs to have the statue removed and melted down.

The only times he's had a broadly, widely positive reputation were WW2 (though other historians at the time argued he was a proto-fascist) and the 60s when Marxist history was popular.

[Valmy]

I respect Cromwell and what he was trying to do quite a bit, however I am not sure he deserves a widely positive view.  He is a complicated figure.

[Sheilbh]

I respect Cromwell and what he was trying to do quite a bit, however I am not sure he deserves a widely positive view.  He is a complicated figure.

Agreed. He's extremely difficult to judge.

It's also a period that's just very difficult to understand from our perspective. It's tough to understand how something like the Bishops' War could happen or how much Arminianism v double predestination mattered to people.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Wasn't Cromwell a rebel?

Wow that is a strange question.  The King left town and raised an army, Parliament did not rise up in revolt.  Not sure who technically the rebel is there.

They all were 

Lords, Commons and King are supposed to work together for the good of the realm.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I respect Cromwell and what he was trying to do quite a bit, however I am not sure he deserves a widely positive view.  He is a complicated figure.

Agreed. He's extremely difficult to judge.

It's also a period that's just very difficult to understand from our perspective. It's tough to understand how something like the Bishops' War could happen or how much Arminianism v double predestination mattered to people.

In general I would say it is a good idea to credit most of the protagonists with sincerity when it comes to their religious views. We moderns are, I believe, sometimes tempted to think that Cromwell, Charles etc were dreadful hypocrites; I think it is a temptation to be resisted.

Maybe it was the dreadful economic background that made religion so intense in this period. The population of the British Isles fell for most of the century, life expectancy was maybe 25 years or so; it was a markedly difficult century to make a living in than the ones previous, despite technological advances. Perhaps not surprising that men's works seemed to be vain and empty so people turned to God.

[Sheilbh]

In general I would say it is a good idea to credit most of the protagonists with sincerity when it comes to their religious views. We moderns are, I believe, sometimes tempted to think that Cromwell, Charles etc were dreadful hypocrites; I think it is a temptation to be resisted.

I agree.

Cromwell's a bit more difficult because I think lots of his contemporaries accused him of being a hypocrite. But I think Austin Woolrych's view is correct. It wasn't hypocrisy as a vacillation by Cromwell between genuine beliefs that he was there to establish God's Kingdom and to be like a 'good country constable' setting the bones of the country after the war. He couldn't do both.

Maybe it was the dreadful economic background that made religion so intense in this period. The population of the British Isles fell for most of the century, life expectancy was maybe 25 years or so; it was a markedly difficult century to make a living in than the ones previous, despite technological advances. Perhaps not surprising that men's works seemed to be vain and empty so people turned to God.

I think it was definitely partly economic and in England especially a function of the start of the modern state.

I always view it in a similar way to industrialisation which was necessary but awful. In the long-run industrialisation needed to happen and was a positive thing. But in the destruction of rural communities through necessary pauperisation, of the skilled craftsmen who were being declassed as well as made obsolete and in urban squalor it was awful.

In a similar way I think a lot of the Reformation was the state beginning to develop. So there was a sweeping away of the local, devout, communal based religion of guilds of maids selling candles for their statue of Mary into a more individual form of spirituality which at this time became politically relevant. In England you've got the added importance of the parish forming the basis of a modernising Tudor state - they were responsible for lots of tax collection for example and were subject to more meddling from the state to ensure they were doing it and that they were orthodox.

I think it's a similar revolutionary period. Again it was necessary and in the long-term good but there were dreadful social costs - and political consequences.

[Zanza]

So far there's little in this add on that would entice me to buy it. The religious addition and the canals are turning me off of it. It's like they're running out of ideas already.

yeah....I think i'm done with this game. It peaked with EU3. Time for something new

I am done with it but for different reasons.  I think EU4 started out well and had a lot of promise if they could only figure out a good system for dynamic trading routes.

Instead they have introduced mechanics the destroy the feel of the game for me.

This. I really liked it when it was new, but it doesn't seem to develop in a direction I find interesting.

[The Brain]

I respect Cromwell and what he was trying to do quite a bit, however I am not sure he deserves a widely positive view.  He is a complicated figure.

Agreed. He's extremely difficult to judge.

It's also a period that's just very difficult to understand from our perspective. It's tough to understand how something like the Bishops' War could happen or how much Arminianism v double predestination mattered to people.

They fought over DP?

[jimmy olsen]

Cromwell also let the Jews back in.

Ah, so the example of toerlance is letting people live in a country who aren't actually in the country yet, heavy discrimination against people who currently live there.  The great tolerance of the Cromwell is remember slightly differently in Ireland.

Didn't they force his hand politically by freezing several thousand protestants or am I thinking of a different rebellion?

[Valmy]

There was a pretty massive revolt during the First Civil War and many Protestants were killed.  Unfortunately for the Irish, the Protestants they killed were mostly Scottish Presbyterians who were not distracted by a civil war at the time.  So the Scots came in and took care of it as only angry Scots can.  I think the Cromwell thing was crushing Royalist efforts.

[garbon]

I like this new improvement.