FREE ESSAY ON OLIVER CROMWELL

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. Professor Blair
Worden of the University of Sussex offers some clarification:
For him the earlier Cromwell, the warrior-hero and agent of divine destruction, had
transcended politics. As protector, charged not with destruction but with reconstruction,
Oliver was obliged, as a merely mortal ruler would have been, to haggle with
parliament... Cromwell merely as the most heroic representative of that heroic movement,
which itself was the representative — because it represented the best — of
England. 
Thus, it is clear that Cromwell commanded the respect of the people. Unfortunately, he
also faced a political system unwilling to change.
Essentially, John Morrill presents arguments that are just as unfounded; however, his
overall conclusion provides a foundation for true insight into the situation. John
Morrill makes preconceived judgments on the character of Oliver Cromwell. Throughout his
introduction to Cromwell, Morrill focuses on undermining every aspect of Cromwell, all in
order to make a seemingly well-founded conclusion. Because very little first hand
information remains on Cromwell, Morrill makes belligerent assumptions of historically
weak evidence. Such a strategy proves to only undercut the authors credibility to
educated readers. Granted that the Cromwell's policies did not produce the results that
he intended, his successes and influence on the government remain historically strategic
in changing the ideology in the world, particularly in the New World where his ideals
took shape in the forming governments.
Oliver Cromwell did not advance political freedom. Rather than break down the
authoritarian rule of the elite, Cromwell relied on it for support and charity. Although
he generally looked out for the good of the common person, Oliver could not, or would
not, control the caustic behavior of those in control under his rule. He attempt to
adjust the system by disestablishing the Rump and creating the Protectorate Parliament
but this only furthered the atrocities as the new legislation was just as harsh and
discomforting to the people. Cromwell avoided fixing the problem so he once again
dissolved the Parliament. When analyzing the lasting effects of Oliver Cromwell, trying
to attribute things of modern day importance undermines the legacy he left and the
individual rights he imparted to those he led. 
Bibliography
Works Cited
Morrill, John, ed. Oliver Cornwell and the English Revolution. NewYork: Longman, 1990.
Morrill, John. Introduction. In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in
World 
Civilizations, ed.Joseph R. Mitchell, 283-294.Guilford: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Worden, Blair. Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Sussex. Speech
given on 
27 October 1999 at the British Academy. Accessed 17 October 2000; Available from 
http://britac3.britac.ac.uk/review/2-worden.html. Internet.