Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Historians views of oliver cromwell
Oliver cromwell failures
Oliver cromwell successes and failures
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Historians views of oliver cromwell
Oliver Cromwell
Oliver Cromwell is one of the most controversial personalities in England's history. Many scientists have been arguing about him for centuries. Some of them assert that Cromwell was a hypocritical and selfish tyrant, rebelling only for the sake of money and fame, while others argue that he was a real revolutionary and fighter for wellbeing of the English nation. Who is right? What is a reasonable evaluation of Cromwell today?
"The English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century was the first revolution on a European scale. It gave a fatal crash for the European feudal system" Unquestionably, Cromwell played a very important role in the England's affairs of that time. As a political and military leader, he had a strong sense of the working of divine providence and incredible strategic thinking. His sincerely held religious views convinced him of the evils of Charles I's regime and the justness of his cause in the Civil War. Political actions of the man were often hesitant at first, then decisive. A simple country gentleman he rose, in the exceptional circumstances of civil war and revolution, to the highest office in the state. Such success showed him that he had God's blessing. His Protectorate was marked by an unusual degree of religious toleration. It provided firm and impartial government as well as united the three nations within the British Isles. The union was based on the military conquest, though. Under Cromwell, England acquired a high reputation abroad.
Charles I was very tolerant to Roman Catholics, but not for the increasing number of Calvinism followers. His religious beliefs and persecutions of those, who opposed the Anglican Church, caused dissatisfaction of many people. Charles' conservat...
... middle of paper ...
...rta Encyclopedia, 1999 Edition CD-ROM,
Washington: Microsoft Corporation, 1999.
Gaunt, Peter. Oliver Cromwell. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Hood, Paxton. Oliver Cromwell: His Life, Times, Battlefields, and Contemporaries.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1892.
Marx, Carl, and Engels, Friedrich. Rinktiniai Raštai Dviem Tomais. (Selected Works
In Two Volumes). Trans. Andrius Staniukenas. Vilnius: Vaga, 1950.
McKay, John P, Hill, Bennet D, and Buckler, John. A History of Western Society.
Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991/
Pavlova, Tatjana. Kromvelis. Vilnius: Mintis, 1985.
Rempel, Gerhard. Oliver Cromwell: Costitutional Crisis In England. On-line
available. http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu, 16 Aug 1997.
Watson, Nickolas. English Civil War. On-line available.
http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist, 9 Oct 1997.
The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule.
The claim that Thomas Cromwell carried out a revolution in Tudor government was generated by the historian Elton, the success of Cromwell as minister in his aims of sovereignty, Parliament and bureaucracy under King Henry VIII. Elton’s claims are met with many sceptic opponents such as Starkey and Guy, criticising that Cromwell’s work up to 1540 was anything but revolution, it was a mere pragmatic approach to fulfilling the king’s wishes which led to his escalation of power and a lucky set of consequential changes in government. The criticisms seem plausible when taking into consideration that Cromwell’s reformations within the Tudor government were not permanent, his work was quickly undone after his death. The work of Cromwell in government was hardly a revolutionary movement as it failed to deeply imprint itself upon England but it is undeniable that he made significant changes to England at the peak of his professional career.
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.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
He was Henry VIII’s chief minister and advisor and helped the king in his annulment to Catherine of Aragon. Cromwell was both a religious man and statesman. It is hard to determine which of these traits caused the most tension during the Reformation period. What is known of Thomas Cromwell’s past can help to better understand the leader he became. He did not come from a noble background yet he became the right hand to the king. He worked hard for everything he had and he was a self taught man. Thomas Cromwell’s life though notable was also very tragic way before he became famous. By understanding his past one can understand the man he became and why he made the decisions he did.
That is not to say there was no opposition to the reformation, for it was rife and potentially serious. The opposition came from both the upper and lower classes, from the monks and nuns and from foreign European powers. This opposition however, was cleverly minimised from the outset, Cromwell’s master plan ensured court opposition was minimal and new acts, oaths and decrees prevented groups and individuals from publicly voicing their dissatisfaction. Those who continued to counter such policies were ruthlessly and swiftly dealt with, often by execution, and used as examples to discourage others. Henry’s desire for a nation free of foreign religious intervention, total sovereign independence, a yearning of church wealth and the desire for a divorce sewed the seeds for reform.
These two opposing religions had their differences be known be the other side and would fight for their ideas to be the ones all to follow. Conrad Russel states in his book The Causes of the English Civil War, that England “was a society with several religions, while still remaining a society with a code of values and a political system which were only designed to be workable with one”. Inside the Church of England was essentially two churches, Protestant and Catholic. Both sides were determined that their religion was going to be the one in the church and not the one outside looking in. Both sides wanted to control the authoritative powerhouse of England and would do anything to have the Church of England become the church of their religion. However, religious differences did not just occur between the citizens, it also occurred between King Charles I and Parliament. First off let’s look at King Charles himself. Charles was a very religious monarch who liked his worship to be High Anglican. He also believed the hierarchy of priests and bishops was very important, which alarmed Parliament because they believed that King Charles was leaning towards the idea of Catholicism in England. King Charles’ form of worship was seen by the Puritan faith as a form of popery. This upset them because they wanted a pure worship without icons or bishops. To clarify, popery is the doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism. Charles also wanted to support William Laud who was the leader of the High Church Anglican Party because they had recently became prominent. Parliament strongly disagreed with the King’s decision because they feared that Laud would promote Roman Catholicism ideas and
King Henry VIII is considerable the most controversial monarch Great Britain has ever had. He is commonly known for his ill-advised decisions, six wives, and splitting Great Britain from the Catholic Church to create the Church of England. King Henry VIII of England’s determination to guarantee his family line’s continuation in the throne caused many problems, such as religious tensions, economic hardships, and political adversaries that continued one long after his death.
...ample. Henry VIII was also responsible for the religious reformation in England and changed the religion of England from the Roman Catholic faith to the Protestant Religion, and established the Church of England. If it weren’t for King Henry VIII, England would not have been as wealthy as it was because of the dissolution of the monasteries. The Act of Appeals aided the constitutional development of England, once again, all thanks to Henry VIII.
Under emperors Ferdinand I and his son Maximillian II, Protestantism in Germany grew quickly (Callahan and Higgs 92). After a transition in rulers, king Charles was left ...
Oliver Cromwell was a prominent leader during the civil war. Cromwell played a leading role in capturing Charles I to trial and execution. During the civil war, Cromwell’s military abilities commit highly to the parliamentary victory which made him appointed as the new model army leader. Also, the parliaments determined that he would end the civil war as the powerful man in England. In the selection, Edmund Ludlow criticize about the new models of government. Cromwell dislikes the idea of new models of government because he feel the new models of government would destroy the power. Also, Ludlow criticizes about Cromwell’s power is being abused too much, so he feels that the nation should governed by its own. Cromwell’s responded that the government
After King Charles I’s execution in January 1649, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) became Lord Protector of the country. Oliver Cromwell was ruler of the country, with assistant of parliament from 25 December 1653, until his death, when his son Richard Cromwell took power. Cromwell wasn’t the king of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland), but he had similar power. Over history it has been disputed whether he was a heroic, powerful saviour for the country, or an evil psychopath who took what they wanted. I have been looking at which one I believe that Cromwell was; a hero or a villain.
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
King Henry VIII was not only a major component of England’s governmental structure, but was also an integral part of English Renaissance literature. From writing love poems to participating in literary endeavors, King Henry VIII revolutionized literature in England all while running the country. His humanist ideals and youthful, energetic personality provided a refreshing change of pace from the previous king, which resulted in the trust and support of his people. While his life was what modern society considers short, King Henry VIII changed the face of literature and government in England.
Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I may have been the English Reformation’s greatest benefactors, all because of self interest. Henry VIII was not originally Protestant, but after the pope denied him of his divorce, Henry VIII took things into his own hands. Due to the power kings had in the Middle Ages, Henry VIII was able to control Parliament and force it to do whatever he wanted. So in 1534, Henry VIII forced Parliament to pass a law he made known as the Act of Supremacy. The Act of Supremacy stated that the king ought to be the head of the Church of England. This law gave the king complete power over the Church of England, instead of the pope. However, the type of church and state relationship did not change. Rather all the Act of Supremacy did was take power from the pope and give it to the king. Surprisingly, the Catholics did not retaliate against this strong change. The pope had always been the head of the church, but now the king had taken his position. This serves as an example of nationalism. The Catholics did not think about how removing the pope could harm their religion in any way. However, instead the people blindly followed Henry VIII because he was the leader of the nation and they assumed he was right. Also, by imposing other laws that punished Protestants, Henry VIII did not give the people much of a choice. Fortunately, for Henry VII, nationalis...