Oliver Cromwell
Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan fundamentalist and undefeated commander of the "Ironsides", forever changed the history of England with, perhaps, what he did not do, rather than what he did do after the success of the insurrection he led against Charles. Though rather unsuccessful as a politician, Cromwell, single-handedly redefining the art of war and military strategy, proved to be one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. Despite the professionally trained forces that often outnumbered him three to one in battle, he struck fear in his opposition and maintained an untarnished record in battle that proved the degree of his skill. Historians traditionally fail to classify his genius because of a desire to try to accredit him with political gains and historical precedence he did not earn. Unfortunately, in these attempts to elevate his stature from "godly" to "God," the positive affects on society he did attribute go seemingly untold and underscored. The most highly contested argument debated today revolves around the Oliver Cromwell's advancement of political freedom in 17th-Century England. Peter Gaunt, in his book Oliver Cromwell, and John Morrill, in the "Introduction" of the book Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, take sides and present their cases as to whether or not Cromwell advanced political freedom. Though, John Morrill asserts the most historically accurate answer, he is still equally as guilty of misrepresenting opinions as facts and offers great leaps in logic as does Peter Gaunt.
Gaunt's logic develops on the assumption that never before had the world seen democracy and that people in general had no freedom before the rule of the "Lord Protectorate." He also suggests that the English all enjoyed the same rights as citizens of England and the oppression of the reign of Charles I had ceased. However, none of these assertions was true. In fact, historically because of things did not change after the defeat of Charles I, the legacy Cromwell envisioned leaving the country never even formulated because of the corruption of others. Gaunt's work, a rather weak source to base such lofty claims as Cromwell's advance of the political freedom, lacked clear presentation and focused more on the appearance of Cromwell than his influence. At most, the only legitimate claim that can be made is that Cromwell served as a hero to the people and a man of God and he fought for a fair and just society in accordance to the "word of God.
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
Known for his betrayl against the Continental Army, Benedict Arnold is most remembered for becoming a turncoat during the Revolutionary War. But, before switiching sides Benedict was a strong military leader and an excellent soldier. And, on both sides of the war, Benedict had great victories. Through his patriotic and traitorous acts, Benedict Arnold helped shape the course of the American Revolution.
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.
Henry Clay was the first Speaker of the House that really helped to establish the position and increase the power. Clay served three terms as Speaker of the House and in those years demonstrated how his tactics were effective as well as successful. Henry Clay was personable, and his youth and assertiveness made him a popular choice for Speaker. Clay used his position to place his allies in important committees to achieve these goals. As Clay gained clout in the House of Representatives, he was able to introduce his American System and ideas founded in the American Colonization Society. Henry Clay’s greatest accomplishment as Speaker of the House was the drafting of the Missouri Compromise, which gained him the title of the Great Compromiser. Henry Clay became a very powerful, respected and effective Speaker of the House, and set a precedent for future Speakers.
The father and son relationship is one of the most important aspects through the youth of a young man. In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, he portrays the concept of having "two fathers". King Henry is Hal’s natural father, and Falstaff is Hal’s moral father. Hal must weigh the pros and cons of each father to decide which model he will emulate. Falstaff, who is actually Hal’s close friend, attempts to pull Hal into the life of crime, but he refuses.
There is has been much speculation as to who murdered President Thomas Jefferson in March of 1809. It is apparent that Aaron Burr had reasons for wanting the President dead. They had become enemies during their race for the presidency and remained on unfriendly terms throughout their time serving together as President and Vice President. When running for re-election, Jefferson dropped Burr from his ticket creating an even wider rift between them. Burr was known for his violent nature, having killed Alexander Hamilton during a duel, which they had entered into as a means of settling a dispute. It is also believed that Burr had intended to overthrow the United States government by carrying out an elaborate scheme involving the creation of a Latin American empire. Jefferson issued a warrant for his arrest after being informed of the plan. Thus adding to Burr's motives for wanting to murder him.
Aaron Burr Aaron Burr felt that he had many good reasons to hate Alexander Hamilton. Burr blamed Hamilton for many of the misfortunes of his life, when in fact, he was at fault. The demise of his reputation began in 1776. “Burr was severely reprimanded by Washington when he was caught in the act of casually reading the Commander-in-chief’s private correspondence. After this incident, Washington mistrusted Burr and maintained a cold, formal distance from him.”
There is no doubt that Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as one of the great American presidents. The general public, when asked about Lincoln, will often tell the tale of a great man. Holding their head high, they will embark on the journey of a benevolent leader, praising the man who envisioned a new America: a great country of racial equality, and the pillar of human liberty. There are some, however, who have quite the opposite view.
One of the most notorious names in history is Benedict Arnold, an American Revolutionary War leader, who is known for being the “traitor to his country.” Yet, without his courageous and heroic deeds in the fight against the British, the Americans may have not gained freedom. In Saratoga, New York, a monument is dedicated to Arnold’s contribution to the victory of the Battle of Saratoga; however, there is no name on the monument. Biographer James Kirby Martin once said, “The tragedy of Benedict Arnold is that his incredible acts … have been washed away and basically forgotten.” Although Benedict Arnold was once a respected and admirable leader of the Americans, he was branded as a selfish and unethical traitor after the Revolutionary War and his efforts towards the success of the Americans were often overlooked or forgotten.
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
He was the son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, his mother, Herleva, the daughter of a tanner of Falaise. In 1035 William’s father Robert, Duke of Normandy, went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in which he died. Before starting the pilgrimage, he presented to the nobles his seven year old child demanding their allegiance. "He is little", the father said, "but he will grow, and, if God please, he will mend." William, after a period of anarchy, became the ruler of Normandy in his father's place at the age of nine. William had a youth of clean life and of much natural piety, while the years of storm and stress through which he passed gave him an endurance of character which lasted to his life's end. During the time of anarchy in Normandy he became a skilled military leader and defeated his enemies, uniting his duchy. Once he began fighting, rumor has it that he never lost a battle.
More knew that Cromwell had set he up, yet had no way of proving it and knew that no-one would believe him. Cromwell was hunting More for his beliefs not actions. People’s greed justified that they could go after More in order to get what they wanted.
The civil war had resulted in the ever-changing amount of kings over the years. This lack of stability could result in Henry being faced with a lack of support from his subjects. Their faith in a king who would guide the country was low, and their interest in the monarchy was fading. They needed consistency, which Henry could not offer considering his unsteady path to safeguarding his position on the throne. The nobility was another issue he had faced. Growing power of nobility in England could be met with resistance to Henry being on the throne. Henry was a calculated king, whom was not interested in the common characteristics of a king; drinking, constant lavish gatherings… Henry was more interested in being a strong and strict king. An opposition from the nobility could result in large reluctancy to follow Henry, further causing insecurity. However, he still had the more favourable opinion than Richard, who was strongly disliked in England, apart from in the north of
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...