Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
Winstanley said, “Cromwell was the English monster who tried to destroy our monarchy.” William Winstanley, a writer and diarist, was a strong Royalist. He was also known as “The Man Who Saved
…show more content…
These facts are well documented and not just Winstanley’s opinion.
At the time of this statement, Cromwell was already dead so Winstanley did not to have to worry about what he could do to him. In some ways, Winstanley is the well qualified to make a statement as he actually lived at the same time as Cromwell where the other two people making statements did not and relied on evidence to make their judgements. Of course the fact he has different beliefs would influence his viewpoint.
Rosebery said about Cromwell, “He was the strong raiser and sustainer of the power of the Empire of England.”
Lord Rosebery, 1899, was the Prime Minister from 1894 to 1895, the leader of the Liberal party and a supporter of the British Empire. He was a well-read, educated man and a member of the nobility. As a member of the nobility with an Earldom, Rosebery would be more similar in some ways to a Royalist. However he was also a well educated person and leader of the Liberal party so would possibly have a more balanced point of view.
His statement was written two centuries after Cromwell and is based on historic evidence and his ability to read books but not from first hand experience. This means he has other peoples’ biased reports to read and these could change they way he thinks about Cromwell without it perhaps being true.
The Boer War was happening around the same time as Rosebery made this statement and
For example, the military wanted a radical religious reform, led by John Lambert, whereas the civilians (or parliament) wanted a more moderate, parliament endorsed regime, led by figures such as Lord Broghill. Therefore, Cromwell was a major source of division and was said to be an "ideological schizophrenic" (Worden). Furthermore "division was made worse by Oliver Cromwell" (Worden) which is seen with the fluctuation of Cromwell's views between 1649-58, beginning with the dissolution of the Rump Parliament, because he favoured the Nominated Assembly, devised by fifth-monarchist Thomas Harrison, however the Assembly was named the Barebones Parliament. Despite Cromwell initially siding with a "Godly rule" (Smith), he reverted back to the regime to protect tradition, helped by Lambert who ended the Barebones Parliament due to the fear of the increasing power of religious radicals. Therefore, it was the indecisive nature of Oliver Cromwell that led to the failure in attempting to create an acceptable settlement in politics and religion.
Do you agree with the view that Thomas Cromwell was the driving force in the break with Rome in the years to 1534?!
King Henry VIII was one of the most powerful rulers in the fifteenth century, who had a very captivating life many people are not aware of. Most people know Henry VIII as a berserk king with too many wives, but there is more to Henry VIII than that. Many few people know about his life and what he truly contributed to our world. Henry VIII was an almighty leader in England who won’t soon be forgotten.
By contrast, by the 1930’s and 1940’s many historians thought Cromwell was a cruel military dictator. This was because in the 1930s and 1940s most scholars saw him as a treacherous dictator, along the lines of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. In recent decades nearly all the scholars have been favourable. During his lifetime, some areas painted him as a fraud encouraged by power — for example, The Machiavellian Cromwell and The Juglers Discovered, both part of an attack on Cromwell by the Levellers after 1647; present him as a Machiavellian figure. After his death and public humiliation there were many accusations and a few encouraging descriptions, such as John Spittlehouse 's A Warning Piece Discharged which compared him to Moses, rescuing the English by taking them securely through the Red Sea of the civil wars.[8] The great royalist historian Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (1667) acknowledged that Cromwell "will be looked ahead by posterity as a brave bad man". Clarendon argued that Cromwell 's rise to power had been helped not only by his Great Spirit and energy, but also by his brutality. The nobility was particularly argumentative to Cromwell, in large part because of his well-built request to the ordinary yeoman.
After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.
What argument does Henry provide against the notion that the colonies are too weak to fight the British?
Oliver Cromwell is – and has always been – one of the most controversial characters in British and Irish history. There are few people in Great Britain and Ireland today who have not yet heard of Oliver Cromwell and either loathe him or see him as a hero. Yet, the world is not black and white and so is the truth about Cromwell. In order to understand his role in both countries as a whole, one has to look at the perspective of both nations, Cromwell’s beliefs and his motives.
He makes it seem as though the pamphlet was written by many people as opposed to him only writing it which we know to be true. It creates this community of people who are fighting against Cromwell and it encourages other people to join their cause. Throughout the pamphlet he uses the term our repeatedly, further including all persons in England. Because he does strive to include everyone in his pamphlet, he also includes everyone into the group that Cromwell brands as
is not enough, I mean I think that we would have to see whether he
There are many interpretations of Oliver Cromwell as he lived in the 17th century, he was seen differently at that time than he is seen today. There are different interpretations because historians might have been biased because they were on one side at that time and unbiased now. Another reason could be that people at that time knew more about him then people do now. However, religion and nationality changed people’s minds too.
It was turbulent times for England during the 17th and 18th century. England was in an unquenchable thirst for more power. “During the 17th and 18th century, England was determined to subdue all lesser countries, especially Ireland” (Stevenson, 28). At the time, England was the dominating country, looking to expand their influence across the world. War broke out constantly as the conquest for more land continued. Moreover, war was constant with the three kingdoms, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Revolts in each kingdom also affected the country’s ability to participate in the war. As
On January 1st of 1649, the Rump Parliament of England passed a mandate for the trial of King Charles I to which he would be charged with “subverting the fundamental laws and liberties of the nation while maliciously making war on the parliament and people of England.” After years of civil war and various failures in fulfilling kingly duties, Charles faced a trial against a strategically assembled English court that would choose his fate. This stands out in history as one of the most noteworthy and dramatic events in early modern England- a domestic political crisis unlike anything that had ever been seen before. Over the years historians have debated in how they characterize the king’s trial and its end result, referring to the execution as “a crime of the worst magnitude, a regrettable necessity, or a laudable challenge to either an individual ruler or the entire political system.” Due to the overall disapproval of the trial by prominent individuals, biased personnel assembled in the court, questionable legal legitimacy, improper court proceedings and unfortunate socio-economic circumstances during his reign, it can be concluded that King Charles I did not receive a fair trial.
Henry VIII's Reformation In 1529 Henry VIII started to reform the Catholic Church in England, however there are different opinions as to why he began these controversial changes. The orthodox view concurs that there was a vast anti-clerical feeling in 16th century England; the corrupt church was unpopular with the masses. However the revisionist view claims that the reformation was actually due to politics. Henry needed a male heir and therefore needed a divorce.
England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.
Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time