I think the concensus is unfair. My understanding of Cromwell is that he was a compassionate general. He kept strict discipline within his army and no Irishman not in arms had no reason to fear his army. A soldier that stole some eggs in Ireland was immediately hanged. A bit rough, maybe, but this is the 17th Century, don't forget.

Guest quoted "Cromwell An Honourable Enemy" by Tom Reilly which really does paint a generous picture of Cromwell, detailing how the crimes Cromwell was supposed to have committed could not have really happened. Cromwell's time in Ireland, although not a happy time for the Irish, was not one of tyranny. It is worth remembering that Cromwell was sent by Parliament to defend the Republic against Royalist forces.

Antonia Fraser's biography of Cromwell, which is highly readable and highly detailed, offers the same opinion. It also shows that even though he was a devout Puritan, he had a lively sense of humour and was liked by those who knew him. He was neither a piece of shit nor a rough diamond. Rather, he was a man of his time who was brave enough to tackle the issues that he faced head on, and conquer them. He was a man of enormous integrity, as well.

The trouble with Cromwell is that he is judged by the standards of our time instead of his. 17th Century England is a foreign country to us. Over 300 years have gone since his death and people still cannot judge him objectively. He gets distorted through the lenses of Irish nationalist propagander, modern day royalist symphisers, and democrats.