Oliver Cromwell

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
So what do you guy's think of him. A Republican? A dictator? A revolutionary? A Conservative? a Liberal? I've heard all of these pronouns used to describe the man but I think he was all of them and none of them. He's one of history's...... odd's and end's I think. He could have done something long lasting, he had a opritunity to, but in the end with the wrong dessions made I think he messed it all up. I will give him this, with his revolution, failed our not, he cemeted the parliments legitmacy, or at least the actions of the revolution did as he in someways weakend the parliment himself.

Anyhow I'll bring my other points to bare after I hear what you guy's think of the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
I'm glad England returned to being a Monarchy again, and this time a Constitutional Monarchy.

I suppose his hatred of Catholics was popular in England - there was massive anti-Catholic feeling right up until the 19th Century, and the authorities often did nothing if mobs attacked a Catholic.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Yeah. My town (Bolton, Lancashire) was a Puritan stronghold during the Civil War and supported the Parliamentarians (Roundheads - supporters of Cromwell) against the Royalists. I think the only town in the North of England to support the Royalists was Sunderland.
-----------------
Bolton during the Civil War


In the 17th century, Bolton was a Puritan stronghold and sided with the Parliamentarian cause against the Royalists. It is said that the Civil War began in Preston, the first battle was in Manchester, but at Bolton the fight was bloodier and at its most intense. Bolton suffered three attacks during the Civil War, led by James Stanley, the Earl of Derby and Prince Rupert. Bolton finally fell to the Royalists in 1644 when their forces entered the town and carried out the only massacre of the Civil Wars. After the war, when the Royalist cause was lost, Derby was tried and sentenced for the massacre. Ye Olde Man & Scythe pub, (pictured above) is the site of the execution of James, the seventh Earl of Derby in 1651. A cross outside the pub bears plaques which relate stories of Bolton through the ages.
----------------------------
Here's information about Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell
(1649-1658 AD)


Oliver Cromwell, born in Huntingdon in 1599, was a strict Puritan with a Cambridge education when he went to London to represent his family in Parliament. Clothed conservatively , he possessed a Puritan fervor and a commanding voice, he quickly made a name for himself by serving in both the Short Parliament (April 1640) and the Long Parliament (August 1640 through April 1660). Charles I, pushing his finances to bankruptcy and trying to force a new prayer book on Scotland, was badly beaten by the Scots, who demanded £850 per day from the English until the two sides reached agreement. Charles had no choice but to summon Parliament.

The Long Parliament, taking an aggressive stance, steadfastly refused to authorize any funding until Charles was brought to heel. The Triennial Act of 1641 assured the summoning of Parliament at least every three years, a formidable challenge to royal prerogative. The Tudor institutions of fiscal feudalism (manipulating antiquated feudal fealty laws to extract money), the Court of the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission were declared illegal by Act of Parliament later in 1641. A new era of leadership from the House of Commons (backed by middle class merchants, tradesmen and Puritans) had commenced. Parliament resented the insincerity with which Charles settled with both them and the Scots, and despised his links with Catholicism.

1642 was a banner year for Parliament. They stripped Charles of the last vestiges of prerogative by abolishing episcopacy, placed the army and navy directly under parliamentary supervision and declared this bill become law even if the king refused his signature. Charles entered the House of Commons (the first king to do so), intent on arresting John Pym, the leader of Parliament and four others, but the five conspirators had already fled, making the king appear inept. Charles traveled north to recruit an army and raised his standard against the forces of Parliaments (Roundheads) at Nottingham on August 22, 1642. England was again embroiled in civil war.

Cromwell added sixty horses to the Roundhead cause when war broke out. In the 1642 Battle at Edge Hill, the Roundheads were defeated by the superior Royalist (Cavalier) cavalry, prompting Cromwell to build a trained cavalry. Cromwell proved most capable as a military leader. By the Battle of Marston Moor in 1644, Cromwell's New Model Army had routed Cavalier forces and Cromwell earned the nickname "Ironsides" in the process. Fighting lasted until July 1645 at the final Cavalier defeat at Naseby. Within a year, Charles surrendered to the Scots, who turned him over to Parliament. By 1646, England was ruled solely by Parliament, although the king was not executed until 1649.

English society splintered into many factions: Levellers (intent on eradicating economic castes), Puritans, Episcopalians, remnants of the Cavaliers and other religious and political radicals argued over the fate of the realm. The sole source of authority rest with the army, who moved quickly to end the debates. In November 1648, the Long Parliament was reduced to a "Rump" Parliament by the forced removal of 110 members of Parliament by Cromwell's army, with another 160 members refusing to take their seats in opposition to the action. The remainder, barely enough for a quorum, embarked on an expedition of constitutional change. The Rump dismantled the machinery of government, most of that, remained loyal to the king, abolishing not only the monarchy, but also the Privy Council, Courts of Exchequer and Admiralty and even the House of Lords. England was ruled by an executive Council of State and the Rump Parliament, with various subcommittees dealing with day-to-day affairs. Of great importance was the administration in the shires and parishes: the machinery administering such governments was left intact; ingrained habits of ruling and obeying harkened back to monarchy.

With the death of the ancient constitution and Parliament in control, attention was turned to crushing rebellions in the realm, as well as in Ireland and Scotland. Cromwell forced submission from the nobility, muzzled the press and defeated Leveller rebels in Burford. Annihilating the more radical elements of revolution resulted in political conservatism , which eventually led to the restoration of the monarchy. Cromwell's army slaughtered over forty percent of the indigenous Irishmen, who clung unyieldingly to Catholicism and loyalist sentiments; the remaining Irishmen were forcibly transported to County Connaught with the Act of Settlement in 1653. Scottish Presbyterians fought for a Stuart restoration, in the person of Charles II, but were handily defeated, ending the last remnants of civil war. The army then turned its attention to internal matters.

The Rump devolved into a petty, self-perpetuating and unbending oligarchy, which lost credibility in the eyes of the army. Cromwell ended the Rump Parliament with great indignity on April 21, 1653, ordering the house cleared at the point of a sword. The army called for a new Parliament of Puritan saints, who proved as inept as the Rump. By 1655, Cromwell dissolved his new Parliament, choosing to rule alone (much like Charles I had done in 1629). The cost of keeping a standard army of 35,000 proved financially incompatible with Cromwell's monetarily strapped government. Two wars with the Dutch concerning trade abroad added to Cromwell's financial burdens.

The military's solution was to form yet another version of Parliament. A House of Peers was created, packed with Cromwell's supporters and with true veto power, but the Commons proved most antagonistic towards Cromwell. The monarchy was restored in all but name; Cromwell went from the title of Lord General of the Army to that of Lord Protector of the Realm (the title of king was suggested, but wisely rejected by Cromwell when a furor arose in the military ranks). The Lord Protector died on September 3, 1658, naming his son Richard as successor. With Cromwell's death, the Commonwealth floundered and the monarchy was restored only two years later.

The failure of Cromwell and the Commonwealth was founded upon Cromwell being caught between opposing forces. His attempts to placate the army, the nobility, Puritans and Parliament resulted in the alienation of each group. Leaving the political machinery of the parishes and shires untouched under the new constitution was the height of inconsistency; Cromwell, the army and Parliament were unable to make a clear separation from the ancient constitution and traditional customs of loyalty and obedience to monarchy. Lacey Baldwin Smith cast an astute judgment concerning the aims of the Commonwealth: "When Commons was purged out of existence by a military force of its own creation, the country learned a profound, if bitter, Lesson: Parliament could no more exist without the crown than the crown without Parliament. The ancient constitution had never been King and Parliament but King in Parliament; when one element of that mystical nion was destroyed, the other ultimately perished."

britannia.com
---------------------------------------------
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Yeah Oliver Cromwell was extremely anti-catholic. But so were a couple of the king's of England. But really the king's even after the civil war didn't always learn the lession of Charlie the first. =-D


Also I think Oliver was more of a despot then a republican. He used the parlimentarian forces really if you ask me to achieve his ends. In the end Mr Lord Protector had dismissed the parliment and set up an actual military dictatorship with lesser of a dozen Marsh Generals to administer the different regions. When he died this military dictatorship or what was left of it invited back the monarchy, not so much the people.

I have some mixed feelings about Cromwell. Would people agree with me he, himself for his time was not a Black and white guy but rather somebody who traveresed the grey area's of history in the right and wrong?



Also a little known fact that Oliver was really against democracy... at least to the magority of the British, as electors numbered less then 100,000. So Oliver was no democrat.

Read up on Oliver Cromwell vs. the Levellers for those of who who think Oliver represented democracy. He was almost as bad as Charlie the first.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Well, most British Kings were anti-Catholic, but not all. Charles II was a Protestant, was married to a Catholic and was probably a closet Catholic himself. His brother, who became King James II (James VII of Scotland) was a Catholic and he was unpopular in England because of it. If was for that reason that James II ended up fleeing for safety abroad and the Protestant King William III (Prince of Orange) came to the throne. He was the first of the Hanoverian dynasty, but many people wanted the Stuarts, a Protestant Stuart, back on the throne. These people were known as Jacobites. The Jacobites failed in their mission because Queen Victoria was the last of the Hanoverian monarchs.

Anyway, back to the topic. Cromwell was a dictator. The modern day Irish, who he also ruled, look at him the way the British look at Hitler. But the GOOD thing that Cromwell did was to uprise against our monarch who, at that time, was all-powerful, unlike now. It was the Monarch who decided what laws England should have. People like Cromwell decided to change this. What made Cromwell really angry was when, after Charles I was forced to sign the Petition of Right that says the king must go through Parliament from now on to enact new laws, taxes, etc he immediately ignored it, which precipitated the English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the king for treason. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During Charles II reign Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act said that any prisoner taken by the king would be given a trial. This prevented the king from simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail.

So I suppose that in some ways, Cromwell did good by helping to give England a Constitutional Monarchy. He didn't want ANY monarchy, but his uprising against Charles I paved the way for Constitutional Monarchy when the Monarchy was restored in 1660.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
There have been debates in Britain for a long time about "Oliver Cromwell - was he good or bad?"

Here is an article from BBC News written in 1999 which was the 400th anniversary of Cromwell's birth -



Cromwell: Hero or villain?


Cromwell said "warts and everything", not "warts and all"

Oliver Cromwell is one of English history's most controversial and enigmatic figures.

An original rebel, his fame rests on his leading a revolt against the monarchy and his attempts to turn Britain into a republic.

Cromwell inspired the beginnings of a more democratic society but his methods were often brutal and bloody. This has led commentators and historians to interpret his character and motives in radically different ways.

On the 400th anniversary of his birth, the arguments over whether he is a hero or a villain have been re-ignited.

Special events around the country are being staged to commemorate his anniversary. In Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, a 17th century marketplace will be reconstructed this weekend.

Earlier this year, an exhibition called Cromwell: Warts and All, at the Museum of London, exemplified the debate about him.

Exhibits, including many rare books, paintings and a bizarre array of supposed relics, showed how opinions of Cromwell have always been fluid.

Curious character

Some might doubt the need for more opining about Oliver Cromwell. To this day, he has suffered a variety of split personalities at the hands of his interpreters.



The supposed death mask of Oliver Cromwell

In print, paint and plaster and myth he has been seen as devil incarnate, deluded fanatic, hero and man of God.

That he was a perplexing character is hard to doubt. Even one of his closest comrades commented: "Cromwell will weep, howl and repent even while he doth smite you under the fifth rib."

Evidence also suggests Cromwell was a man of honesty. When commissioning a portrait of himself, he told the painter: "I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me ... warts and everything." The artist duly obliged.

Reviled and revered

In 1645, Cromwell's New Model Army famously destroyed the king's forces at the Battle of Naseby, then went on to put down rebellions in Wales and Scotland over the next six years.

Nowhere is Cromwell's reputation more controversial than in Ireland where he was sent to put an end to almost a decade of insurrection.

In September 1649, Cromwell's 12,000-strong forces stormed Drogheda, north of Dublin.

HIs troops massacred nearly everyone in the garrison and the town - which Cromwell justified as the "righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches".

A month later Wexford suffered the same fate and both incidents, justified by the British as militarily necessary to subdue the population, still figure strongly in Irish republican history.

Many also hold Cromwell responsible for the execution of Charles I in January 1649, although there were 59 signatories to the death warrant.

This view is reinforced by books, paintings and prints depicting the king as a saintly martyr and Cromwell as a tyrant and regicide.


Charles I as the saintly martyr with stitched-on head

In one, a contemporary portrait of Charles I after his execution, the king sports a holy expression and a livid scar where his head has been stitched back on.

Despite this opposition Cromwell established his status and authority. Supported by the army, he was appointed Lord Protector in 1653.

It was a remarkable achievement for a man who had had little military experience before 1642.

He consistently attributed his military success to God's will. Historians point to his courage and skill, his care in training and equipping his men and to the tight discipline he imposed.



Silver-gilt medal struck to celebrate Cromwell's elevation to Lord Protector

Commemorative medals were struck as his popularity grew. This admiration was revived in the 18th and 19th centuries, when Cromwell "the great leader" was portrayed on coins and tankards.

When he died in 1658 of malaria, England was prosperous and the seeds of a constitutional government had been sown. But he failed to establish a written constitution or leave a lasting system of government.

Cromwell was given a truly regal funeral ceremony, costing around £60,000 - at a time when the average wage was one shilling a day.


Back to square one

But by the time of the restoration of the monarchy in 1661, Cromwell was again an object of hate. His body was exhumed, hung at Tyburn (Marble Arch) and later cast into a pit under the gallows.

Another story says that the severed head, mounted on a pole, fell at the feet of a soldier one windy night. It is now supposedly buried at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.



Cromwell as a decoration for an ornate clock

In modern times, most writers have preferred to debate whether Cromwell, good or bad, has been the product of propaganda.

Their pages have helped to make up the estimated 4,000 books written about the man.

Consensus of opinion remains elusive, however. And if nearly 400 years of debate have failed to settle the issue of his reputation once and for all, it seems he is destined to forever be Britain's most controversial ruler.


news.bbc.co.uk
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I think Cromwell ended up nobetter then a dictator but at the same time he was forced by extremists at both ends you could say. But he was no democrat because he could have sided with the levellers and found a new base of support, but I'd guess because of his puritian/calvinist roots which Calvinists where very fatelistic on how they saw the world he had a very low opinion of the poor.


I however think Cromwell deserves a fair look in history and a balanced look at what he acieved and failed to achieve and why.
 

ElPolaco

Electoral Member
Nov 5, 2004
271
0
16
Fruita, CO, Aztlan
www.spec-tra.com
Cromwell was a dictator because he ruled over parliament and his power base was the army. He was a republican because he established a regime without a monarch. He was a liberal in the classical sense because of his, what was defined then as, middle class support and used much of the rhetoric of the Scottish Enlightenment. He was a revolutionary in that he did all well before its time.
 

The Gunslinger

Electoral Member
May 12, 2005
169
0
16
Wetaskiwin, AB
In England he lived in interesting times. I mean, look at everything that happened between 1588-1688, it was an interesting century. Cromwell, in my opinion, is just another another interesting character capable of great things who popped up when the circumstances permitted.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Oliver Cromwell

ElPolaco said:
Cromwell was a dictator because he ruled over parliament and his power base was the army. He was a republican because he established a regime without a monarch. He was a liberal in the classical sense because of his, what was defined then as, middle class support and used much of the rhetoric of the Scottish Enlightenment. He was a revolutionary in that he did all well before its time.

Well I wouldn't even call him a Liberal in the classical sence, because the bourgoeisie was still very... petty bourgoeisie and not yet strong enough to do much. Though they were his defeanders, more of a mixture of petty bourgoeisie Calvenist. But even that he desolved by dismissing parliment and using mostly a millitary dictatorship.

The Whigs (aka classical liberals) would have been the biggest supporters of this type of revolution. As it would have removed the crown and the nobles from the economic scene and would have allowed for the classical notions of lasser faire.
 

ElPolaco

Electoral Member
Nov 5, 2004
271
0
16
Fruita, CO, Aztlan
www.spec-tra.com
Re: RE: Oliver Cromwell

Finder said:
ElPolaco said:
Cromwell was a dictator because he ruled over parliament and his power base was the army. He was a republican because he established a regime without a monarch. He was a liberal in the classical sense because of his, what was defined then as, middle class support and used much of the rhetoric of the Scottish Enlightenment. He was a revolutionary in that he did all well before its time.

Well I wouldn't even call him a Liberal in the classical sence, because the bourgoeisie was still very... petty bourgoeisie and not yet strong enough to do much. Though they were his defeanders, more of a mixture of petty bourgoeisie Calvenist. But even that he desolved by dismissing parliment and using mostly a millitary dictatorship.

The Whigs (aka classical liberals) would have been the biggest supporters of this type of revolution. As it would have removed the crown and the nobles from the economic scene and would have allowed for the classical notions of lasser faire.

...then even his military Calvinist base was split between the Presbyterians and the more radical Congregationalists. BTW (while on the subject of Calvinism and politics) did you know that the radical abolitionist John Brown (devout Calvinist) was an admirer of Cromwell.
 

dobby_92

New Member
May 24, 2006
2
0
1
Wales
I've recently been studying Oliver Cromwell at school and have had to create a report on what type of man he was in preperation for a class debate on whether he was a good leader or not. :scratch: I thought this would have meant toiling through mountains of books and research to find some opinions and ideas. :study:
But your thoughts, opinions and contributions have helped me to create a clearer picture and better understanding of the man.
Thankyou!!! :love5:
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Life was not good under Cromwell's Republic - or the Interregnum as it was known.

We were ruled by Puritan laws. Theatres were banned. It was against the law for actors to ply their trade. Most forms of work were banned on Sundays. Women caught doing unnecessary work on the Holy Day could be put in the stocks. Simply going for a Sunday walk (unless it was to church) could lead to a hefty fine. Most sports were banned. Boys caught playing football on a Sunday could be whipped as a punishment. Swearing was punished by a fine, though those who kept swearing could be sent to prison.

Cromwell even banned Christmas.

When the Monarchy was restored in 1660, there were celebrations throughout England. The King, Charles II, wanted the people who signed Charles I's death warrant executed.

At that time, Cromwell was dead - he died in 1658. But this didn't stop him having a posthumous execution. Charles II, in 1661, ordered the graves of Cromwell and 2 other regicides to be dug up and their bodies taken on hurdles to London's notorious Tyburn - the place where London's undesirables were hanged, drawn and quartered.

On their way from the graves to Tyburn, the bodies were kept for the night at an inn at Charing Cross. Rumour has it that Cromwell's body was in such a bad condition that his body was buried in the grounds of the inn that night, and a soldier's body was, unknowingly to everyone else, used in his place.

As usual in England in those days, thousands lined the streets of London as the men (even though these were already dead) were dragged through the streets on hurdles on their way to Tyburn. One of the three bodies gave off such an awful smell that everyone in the crowd had to turn away when it passed.

After they were posthumously executed (they weren't quartered) their bodies were slung into a pit underneath the Tyburn gallows - known to Londoners as the "Nevergreen Tree".

One of the three body's was in such a bad state, that a green slimy substance oozed out from the cloth that his body was wrapped in.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Life in England under Oliver Cromwell




Oliver Cromwell remains one of our most famous characters in history. From 1649 to 1653, Parliament ran England but from Cromwell's point of view, it was not a system that worked effectively and England, as a nation was suffering. As a result, Cromwell, backed by the army, sent home MP’s and he became the effective leader of England from 1653 to 1658.

He was the man who really pushed for the execution of Charles as he believed that Charles would never change his ways and that he would continue to be a source of trouble until he died. Cromwell's signature is one of the easiest to make out on the death warrant of Charles - it is third on the list of signatures (59 people signed it). It is said that a shadowy man was seen by guards who were guarding the dead body of Charles. He was heard to mutter "Twas a cruel necessity, twas a cruel necessity." Was this Cromwell? However, there is no proof that this ever happened and it could be that it is just one of those historical stories that has gone down into legend.

Cromwell was a Puritan. He was a highly religious man who believed that everybody should lead their lives according to what was written in the Bible. The word "Puritan" means that followers had a pure soul and lived a good life. Cromwell believed that everybody else in England should follow his example.

One of the main beliefs of the Puritans was that if you worked hard, you would get to Heaven. Pointless enjoyment was frowned upon. Cromwell shut many inns and the theatres were all closed down. Most sports were banned. Boys caught playing football on a Sunday could be whipped as a punishment. Swearing was punished by a fine, though those who kept swearing could be sent to prison.

Sunday became a very special day under he Puritans. Most forms of work were banned. Women caught doing unnecessary work on the Holy Day could be put in the stocks. Simply going for a Sunday walk (unless it was to church) could lead to a hefty fine.

To keep the population’s mind on religion, instead of having feast days to celebrate the saints (as had been common in Medieval England), one day in every month was a fast day - you did not eat all day.

He divided up England into 11 areas; each one was governed by a major-general who was trusted by Cromwell. Most of these generals had been in Cromwell’s New Model Army. The law - essentially Cromwell's law - was enforced by the use of soldiers.

Cromwell believed that women and girls should dress in a proper manner. Make-up was banned. Puritan leaders and soldiers would roam the streets of towns and scrub off any make-up found on unsuspecting women. Too colourful dresses were banned. A Puritan lady wore a long black dress that covered her almost from neck to toes. She wore a white apron and her hair was bunched up behind a white head-dress. Puritan men wore black clothes and short hair.

Cromwell banned Christmas as people would have known it then. By the C17th, Christmas had become a holiday of celebration and enjoyment - especially after the problems caused by the civil war. Cromwell wanted it returned to a religious celebration where people thought about the birth of Jesus rather than ate and drank too much. In London, soldiers were ordered to go round the streets and take, by force if necessary, food being cooked for a Christmas celebration. The smell of a goose being cooked could bring trouble. Traditional Christmas decorations like holly were banned.

Despite all these rules, Cromwell himself was not strict. He enjoyed music, hunting and playing bowls. He even allowed full-scale entertainment at his daughter’s wedding.

Despite being a highly religious man, Cromwell had a hatred for the Irish Catholics. He believed that they were all potential traitors willing to help any Catholic nation that wanted to attack England (he clearly did not know too much about the 1588 Spanish Armada).

During his time as head of government, he made it his task to ‘tame’ the Irish. He sent an army there and despite promising to treat well those who surrendered to him, he slaughtered the people of Wexford and Drogheda who did surrender to his forces. He used terror to ‘tame’ the Irish. He ordered that all Irish children should be sent to the West Indies to work as slave labourers in the sugar plantations. He knew many would die out there - but dead children could not grow into adults and have more children. Cromwell left a dark stain on the history of Ireland.

By the end of his life, both Cromwell and the 11 major-generals who helped to run the country, had become hated people. The population was tired of having strict rules forced onto them. Cromwell died in September 1658. His coffin was escorted by over 30,000 soldiers as it was taken to Westminster Abbey where he was buried. Why so many soldiers? Were they there as a mark of respect for the man who had formed the elite New Model Army? Or was there concern that the people of London, who had grown to hate Cromwell, would try to get to the body and damage it in some way ?

Cromwell was buried in Westminster Abbey. This is where kings and queens were buried. His son, Richard, took over leadership of the country. However, Richard was clearly not up to the task and in 1660 he left the job. In that year, 1660, Charles II was asked to return to become king of England. One of Charles’ first orders was that Cromwell’s body should be dug up and put on 'trial' as a traitor and regicide (someone who is responsible for the execution/murder of a king or queen). His body was put on trial, found guilty and symbolically hanged from a gallows at Tyburn (near Hyde Park, London). What was left of his body remains a mystery. Some say the body was thrown on to a rubbish tip while others say it was buried beneath the gallows at Tyburn. His head was put on display in London for many years to come.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cromwell_england.htm
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
I think to understand Oliver Cromwell, you hve to understand the times in which he lived, the fact that Protestantism in England was only an excuse for the catholic king Henry the 8th to get his end away should also be remembered.

I think ultimatly, it's a classic example of how power corrupts, the way he stormed into parliment and got rid of the king and his parliment was inspired, obviously he initially bsed a lot of his ideas on the greek and roman ideas of democracy initially, then stalled and changed his mind.

the man could have been great, he could have continued the good work that the magna carta (which was written near where I live Blackleaf ed.) left off, effectively parliment left picked up where that document left off only when he died.

The french copied what he did concerning the shambolic dictatorial leadership of the king, his ideas were used by the American patriots borrowed some.

But unfortunatly, what I'll always remember him for is a man that "bottled it", when power was given to him, it corrupted a man with inspired ideas, he turned into a dictator, treated the irish in a way that continued until they emancipated themselves and for that, I think he should be remembered.

I think perhaps he became very over-zealous concerning the catholic threat, and in a way not unlike that of joseph stalin or Adolf Hitler, he saw enemies everywhere nd wanted to systemactically rid ireland of catholics.

to summise, I think he was a failure, he could have done and been so much, but was ruined by his own power and gave in to his own fears and that is what, in my opinion he will always be remembered for.......a waste
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Daz_Hockey, your right, but that is true for any historic figure. I myself have mixed feelings about Cromwell. I think he had many hard dessions to make and a lot of them he was forced into by how people thought around him as well.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
When I first posted on Cromwell on this forum, I didn'y know what to think of him.

But, being interested in British history, I've now been reading more about about life in Cromwell's England, so I'm more of an expert.

He did good in the sense that he knew it would have been better for the Monarch to pass laws through parliament first rather than the Monarch to rule the country absolutely, as Charles I wanted, but he wasn't too kind in ruling England under Puritan laws. People weren't allowed to have fun.

But it's thanks to him that Britain, and Canada, have a Constitutional Monarch today rather than a Absolute Monarch.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Re: RE: Oliver Cromwell

Daz_Hockey said:
I think perhaps he became very over-zealous concerning the catholic threat, and in a way not unlike that of joseph stalin or Adolf Hitler, he saw enemies everywhere nd wanted to systemactically rid ireland of catholics.

Cromwell was right about the Catholic threat. In those days, just like now, England was overwhemingly Protestant. Lots of Catholic countries were intent on invading England and putting a Catholic monarch on the Throne, which would have meant the English being in the unfair position of being ruled by a Catholic even though we were mostly Protestant. Spain, in 1588, was a good example. Mary, Queen of Scots, married the Catholic King Phillip of Spain, then the Spanish sent the Armada to invade England and put Phillip on the Throne. Luckily, they were defeated.

Cromwell might have killed Catholics in Ireland to make it a non-Catholic country, but in the 1550s Queen Mary (Bloody Mary), a Catholic, killed thousands of English Protestants to try and make England a Catholic country.

So the English had Catholics committing atrocities on them long before they started killing Catholics.