Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Historians on oliver cromwell
Oliver cromwell successes and failures
Historians on oliver cromwell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Historians on oliver cromwell
Oliver Cromwell's Achievement of His Objectives from 1642 to 1658
To look at Cromwell’s aims and whether he achieved them or not is to
enter “a minefield of` historical controversy and uncertainty,” as
modern day historian Barry Coward put it. Cromwell’s aims have always
been somewhat of a paradox so to answer whether he achieved them all
would be impossible. Many of his goals contradicted or obstructed some
of his other views. The views which he held closest to his heart were
‘Liberty of Conscience’ – Cromwell’s belief in religious toleration, a
united National Church, the ‘Reformations of Manners’- his goal of a
nation of Godly people, and social and legal reform. Although these
were his most favoured objectives, throughout his rule as Protector he
attempted to achieve what he described as ‘settlement and healing’-
keeping conservative support and repairing the wounds of the civil
war. This meant there were a number of other policies he strived to
achieve, often having to contradict the religious and social reforms
he desired, these were; establishing broad support- even including
royalists; keeping government as traditional as possible and
maintaining social order. The whole time he also wanted to keep the
army satisfied, as it was his main source of power. However the army
was associated with radicalism by the propertied and gentry, again
causing more compromises for Cromwell. Foreign Policy and the unity of
Great Britain were also important in Cromwell’s eyes. All these
objectives will be looked at and assessed as to whether they were a
failure or success in both Cromwell’s and others eyes.
Many have described Cromwell's idea ...
... middle of paper ...
...sful
of Cromwell’s objectives.
Religious reforms seem to be what Cromwell held dearest to his heart,
the vision of a ‘New Jerusalem’ in England, free of sin and a united
national church. As these were never realised it would be hard to
argue as a whole that Cromwell achieved his goals, in fact he got
nowhere near. However his attempts to heal the wounds of the civil war
and gain the support of the landed classes have to be described as a
success. He made a republic government acceptable in a country that
was ideologically hostile towards one. His success abroad highlights
Cromwell's skill as a politician and it is unlikely that any man could
have achieved what he had hoped to achieve. To call Cromwell’s reign
as a failure is far from the truth. To say he achieved his objectives,
however, is a huge overstatement.
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
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.
training when he came to power in 1485, had managed in the time he was
In the second half of the eighteenth century, the British were faced with rebelling colonies. Finally realizing that they had to fight to keep their colonial possessions, the British sent troops to America. Once the battles began in America, the British were not impressed with the colonial military, but the weak militias soon proved to be effective. With foreign aid from France, American devotion, and the lack of British vigor, the Americans soon discovered the open doors of independence. In my opinion, the American advantages and the British disadvantages proved to be the downfall of the English in the American Revolution.
war often, for the sake of his country, but when he did he put in a
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.
Peace of London in 1518, the Field of the Cloth of Gold and the Calais
...laws were unfair and should be more reasonable as well as democratic. He thought that it should be fair for all and there is a need of liberty, religion and justice (Doc N). Later on, religious toleration flourished among the colonies. This was a very important change because religious toleration was an important step towards democracy.
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
But, most importantly, Napoleon did what he thought would make his country stronger. One of Napoleon’s first areas of concern was in the strengthening of the French government. He created a strong centralized government and pretty much got rid of the hundreds of localized law codes that had existed while under the control of the monarchy. He also created an army of government officials. He had the entire country linked under a rational administration.
The Conservatives lead by President Johnson, believed in a rapid readmission, into the Union, for the defeated Southern states. Johnson's stipulations were solely that the states ratify the 13th Amendment, and repudiate Confederate war debt (thus making it null and void). A second more controversial measure to the democrat's plan for rapid reconstruction was the issuing of pardons to former Confederate officials, landowners, and generals. As a direct result of these pardons, former plantation owners' land was returned. The goal of the Conservatives during Reconstruction was obviously to return the South to the social, political, and economic structure of the antebellum period.
It promised certain administrative reforms, the abolition of tax farming, the standardization of military conscription, and the elimination of corruption. 2 These decrees created equality among all religions, decentralized the government, and helped to make the millets more autonomous.... ... middle of paper ... ...
When one thinks of Henry the eighth the first thing that comes up is fat, wife-killer, meat eater, old, mean and overall horrendous. But almost no one refers to him as misunderstood, manipulated or young man who was not meant to be King of England. This is how Suzannah Lipscomb portrays Henry VIII in her book, 1536: The Year that Changed Henry VIII, King Henry faces many tribulations in 1536 that shaped the rest of his reign; from his marriages, injuries, heirs, to his influence in the European spectrum.
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.
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...