I’ve been reading about him, so I wanted to give my case rebutting the common claim that Cromwell was essentially just another monarch or that he was even a proto-fascist. Cromwell explicitly rejected an offer from parliament to become king stating that God had already destroyed the monarchy and that he would not “build Jericho again”. He tried a variety of different systems from constitutional monarchism, to the parliamentary oligarchy, to a theocratic council, to a land owning democracy, to military rule, before finally essentially making himself a dictator. So, while his authoritarianism in some respects cannot be denied, it is clear that he did not do what he did out of personal ambition or a desire to become king. Similarly the fact that Cromwell’s successor was his son is often used to paint Cromwell as having held no real beliefs, but in reality we really don’t have the historical information to know if Cromwell even wanted his son to take power after him. He had the power to choose his successor to the office of Lord Protector, but up until his death there was no real evidence he favored his son as a successor. Finally, yes, Cromwell did some bad stuff in Ireland, but he invaded after they violently purged many English settlers and Irish Protestants, and sided with the English Royalists who had fled there. While there he did commit warcrimes but it was nothing super extraordinary for the time, the main actual harm he did was his reforms afterwards which marginalized Irish Catholics and empowered further settlement. However, generally Cromwell was actually quite religiously tolerant despite his radical puritan beliefs, as he attempted to create a new tolerant and loose church, he allowed Jewish people harbor in Britian for the first time in centuries, and he even intervened on the behalf of the Catholics he so hated when some Protestants in the English colonies tried to usurp their right to freedom of conscience.
You don't discuss Scotland in your defence of Cromwell. More tot he point, the problem with Cromwell surely was, gifted though he undoubtedly was, it needs more than one genius to establish an enduring system of government. Monarchy can do this as it is an institution not an individual, but Cromwell couldn't and his system crumbled from within less than two years after his death.
I love how insanely egalitarian this interpretation of Englishness is. City apprentice and Anglian Yokel. And the reference to the Levellers. Just makes you appreciate the cause these men fought for.
There is something to be said for optimistic/aspirational patriotism. Not so much love of your country as it is, but love of your country as it could be.
It is interesting that the Royalist side were actually more socially liberal than the parliamentarians, i think theres a case for the some of the roundheads to be a sort of proto-fascism or something in that area of thought
@varalderfreyr8438 Because they were? I mean Cromwell crushed any leftist movement in the country like the proto-socialist levellers. His Christianity was a very conservative form of Christianity. He was very militaristic and imperialistic too. He was a Proto-Hitlerian.
@@idunno2019 proto-fascism is a extreme stretch, yes a lot of them were authoritarian compared to our modern standards but keep in mind these are the same people who founded the conception of limited government and parliamentarian democracy, and by extension the first liberal government in human history, their authoritarianism was due to their belief in god or some sort of common moral rather than as worship of the nation state, which they quite disliked as they viewed it as easily corruptible by the papacy
@@aaravtulsyan The onus is on the OP to provide it surely? They admit it has no historical provenance in the description. Getting a bit tired of these accounts making claims about English history when they obviously know nothing about it.
This song is clearly not from the 1640s because it refers to the New Model by name. 'In its lifetime the New Model was not called the New Model; in official documentation it was always described as the "army under Sir Thomas Fairfax"' Diane Purkiss The English Civil War: A People's History, (London:Harper Perennial, 2007), p.423. This plus the Levellers reference (they preferred the name Agitators at the time and adopted the Leveller name only gradually) all clearly show that this song is a later invention. Something substantiated by other comments, I would recommend altering your description. (Also its rhymes are not consistent with Original Pronounciation which is what the song would have been written in were it contemporary).
Quite an interesting phrase in the song is, " . . . conscience of Parliament" . So the army seemed to think when Parliament did something it didn't like, it could tap Parliament on the shoulder and say, "No, don't do that." So the army that Parliament raised turned around and started bossing Parliament around. Interesting aside here. My wife and I visited England in 2018 and one of the places we visited was the City of York. We did the tour of the Cathedral and at one point we got to the back of the Cathedral and there was an eight-sided room (marble walls, if I recall). The guide told us how the church wardens would meet there to discuss church business. However, under the Commonwealth, everything in the area was being run by a military general. So there was no more meetings of the church wardens. So one fellow applied to be allowed to tear this building down and reuse the materials for another building. And since it was no longer being used, he was given permission to do so. However, a few weeks later, the man died. And so, the building was never torn down. So under Cromwell, England was divided up into military districts.
@arabiannights1640 it's a modern song. "Conscience of parliament" is a retrospective reference to the coup you're referring to, yes. It would be crazy for them to have actually sung this song at the time
The New Model Army was not led by Oliver Cromwell until the third Civil War/the Anglo-Scotch War after Sir Thomas Fairfax, who was general and Parliamentary commander-in-chief during the first and second Civil War, resigned his commission in opposition to the war with Charles II. Parliament was not against the monarchy... how could it be when the Crown is part of Parliament just as the House of Commons and the House of Lords are. They fought for Parliament against the arbitrary prerogative of the Crown, not the institution itself... they wanted to restore Parliamentary Monarchy by bringing the King and his royal government back under the control of Parliamentary procedure... until the Army became dominated by radicals. Also when they say "Marching for commonwealth, God, and the land!" they don't mean "the Commonwealth of England" as in the structure of government from 1649-1653 and again from 1659-1660... they mean "public welfare, general good or advantage", its was a phrase popular at that time dating from around the 15th century and was an early translation of the Latin word res publica... also the old meaning of "wealth", meant "well-being" so, said term literally meant "common well-being"... which is also what is implied by the name "Commonwealth of England"... but like with other states today that have the word "Democratic" in its name, the opposite is true... and as we Englishmen found out, the establishment of our English Parliamentary Monarchy was itself for the commonwealth of England... and both James I and Charles I did their upmost to undermine that great commonwealth that England had... and it took until 1688/89 to properly restore it.
The final form of the army during the 3rd civil war and into the regime he did lead, so I used the recent most form of the army. Parliament was no against the monarchy in the beginning, but the Roundhead side turned into anti-monarchist during the first civil war, it warped into Parliament being anti monarchy during the war and the foundation of the smaller English commonwealth in 1649, so I used the most recent examples of the army, and during the times they were getting increasingly radical as the war progressed into the commonwealth days. And I’m not saying about the glorious revolution and such, pretty right there.
You are correct, it was led by Sir Thomas Fairfax, but all those conflicts were between Parliament and King CharlesI. And, it was he who raised his banner at Nottingham to start the Civil Wars. It wasn't the radicals. Fairfax was Presbyterian and had Parliamentarian positions, but he backed off when Parliament proscribed sentence against Charles I. He was the best soldier, but he was not a politician. He was deeply disturbed by the Protestant division. Actually, the Army was lead by Independents, who became Congregationalists. They were actually the ones where we got much of our ideas of liberty from. The Commonwealth was a republic, though that changed when Cromwell stepped in and made it a Protectorate. This was supposed to be until they could restore the republic. You are right, it wasn't until the Glorious Revolution that the original intention of Parliament was to make a parliamentarian monarchy, which meant no one was above the law, which was important to Fairfax - he often referred to the Magna Carta. The Stuarts wanted to be absolutist like the French kings.This absolutism and Laudian reforms forced the conflict. If Prince Henry had lived, Charles older brother, I think the civil wars would have been averted.
@@quasicroissantThe issue is that Strawhead recorded many genuine Civil War songs such as ‘When the King enjoys his own again’ and ‘the royal head is severed’ which we have records of dating back to the 1640s. So it’s hard to know whether they actually wrote this song or used some earlier record. I can’t find any copyright ownership over the song and tune.
Too bad this group became a totalitarian religious faith. Cromwell basically outlawed other forms of Christianity. (Especially Catholicism) and music and dancing. He made parts of I relsnd a wzsteland when attacked Stuart supporters and Catholics there.
@@cromwell.is.awesome Everything i am aware of says that he closed Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector. I can't say how long that closed it for; but he and his form 0f Christianity ruled until his death. His son initially took over and eventually the Stuart line was returned. That lasted about one generation.
@@cromwell.is.awesomebruh no to you. He did f**k over Ireland . How can you call yourself a historian when all you do is suck up to biased sources so you never have to compete a single argument in your life.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the heartiness and spirit in this song.
I’ve been reading about him, so I wanted to give my case rebutting the common claim that Cromwell was essentially just another monarch or that he was even a proto-fascist.
Cromwell explicitly rejected an offer from parliament to become king stating that God had already destroyed the monarchy and that he would not “build Jericho again”. He tried a variety of different systems from constitutional monarchism, to the parliamentary oligarchy, to a theocratic council, to a land owning democracy, to military rule, before finally essentially making himself a dictator. So, while his authoritarianism in some respects cannot be denied, it is clear that he did not do what he did out of personal ambition or a desire to become king.
Similarly the fact that Cromwell’s successor was his son is often used to paint Cromwell as having held no real beliefs, but in reality we really don’t have the historical information to know if Cromwell even wanted his son to take power after him. He had the power to choose his successor to the office of Lord Protector, but up until his death there was no real evidence he favored his son as a successor.
Finally, yes, Cromwell did some bad stuff in Ireland, but he invaded after they violently purged many English settlers and Irish Protestants, and sided with the English Royalists who had fled there. While there he did commit warcrimes but it was nothing super extraordinary for the time, the main actual harm he did was his reforms afterwards which marginalized Irish Catholics and empowered further settlement. However, generally Cromwell was actually quite religiously tolerant despite his radical puritan beliefs, as he attempted to create a new tolerant and loose church, he allowed Jewish people harbor in Britian for the first time in centuries, and he even intervened on the behalf of the Catholics he so hated when some Protestants in the English colonies tried to usurp their right to freedom of conscience.
You don't discuss Scotland in your defence of Cromwell. More tot he point, the problem with Cromwell surely was, gifted though he undoubtedly was, it needs more than one genius to establish an enduring system of government. Monarchy can do this as it is an institution not an individual, but Cromwell couldn't and his system crumbled from within less than two years after his death.
@jonathanoates1298 why would he need to mention Scotland in his comment? It was an excellent contribution, here here
@@ExtremelyTriggered-tl4nv finally! An accurate portrayal of Cromwell!
@@ExtremelyTriggered-tl4nv interesting. Thanks for the research
Finally, someone who has actually researched Cromwell.
I never heard this one before.
I like the bagpipe touch.
English had pipes too, don't believe the tourist industry or separatists.
@@carolinetarrant2486 unfortunately most English pipes are gone but northumberland pipes are still going strong.
@@carolinetarrant2486almost every country in europa had their own bagpipe
I love how insanely egalitarian this interpretation of Englishness is. City apprentice and Anglian Yokel. And the reference to the Levellers. Just makes you appreciate the cause these men fought for.
There is something to be said for optimistic/aspirational patriotism. Not so much love of your country as it is, but love of your country as it could be.
The Levellers would be vilified for being too woke these days.
It is interesting that the Royalist side were actually more socially liberal than the parliamentarians, i think theres a case for the some of the roundheads to be a sort of proto-fascism or something in that area of thought
@varalderfreyr8438 Because they were? I mean Cromwell crushed any leftist movement in the country like the proto-socialist levellers. His Christianity was a very conservative form of Christianity. He was very militaristic and imperialistic too. He was a Proto-Hitlerian.
@@idunno2019 proto-fascism is a extreme stretch, yes a lot of them were authoritarian compared to our modern standards but keep in mind these are the same people who founded the conception of limited government and parliamentarian democracy, and by extension the first liberal government in human history, their authoritarianism was due to their belief in god or some sort of common moral rather than as worship of the nation state, which they quite disliked as they viewed it as easily corruptible by the papacy
This is adapted from a much later folk song, and is from a prog rock album of the 1970s. It has nothing to do with the NMA.
A link to backup your claims?
Possibly, but it is very obviously in reference to the NMA
Who was the artist?
@@aaravtulsyan The onus is on the OP to provide it surely? They admit it has no historical provenance in the description. Getting a bit tired of these accounts making claims about English history when they obviously know nothing about it.
@@RobotToaster Strawhead, a folk rock group from the 70s
This song is clearly not from the 1640s because it refers to the New Model by name. 'In its lifetime the New Model was not called the New Model; in official documentation it was always described as the "army under Sir Thomas Fairfax"' Diane Purkiss The English Civil War: A People's History, (London:Harper Perennial, 2007), p.423. This plus the Levellers reference (they preferred the name Agitators at the time and adopted the Leveller name only gradually) all clearly show that this song is a later invention. Something substantiated by other comments, I would recommend altering your description. (Also its rhymes are not consistent with Original Pronounciation which is what the song would have been written in were it contemporary).
@@dehavillandvampire Where does the name New Model then come from ?
@dehavillandvampire Strawhead, champions
I'm Catholic and a royalist, but this song still touches something in me.
JOIN PARLIAMENT!!! CONVERT TO PURITANISM!!! EMBRACE THE COMMONWEALTH!!!!!
Repent and become a dour Calvinist
Protestant won the day against catholic tyranny, my forefathers fought under Cromwell in his Iron brigade.
Cromwell has to be history’s best example of the redeemable villain.
Quite an interesting phrase in the song is, " . . . conscience of Parliament" . So the army seemed to think when Parliament did something it didn't like, it could tap Parliament on the shoulder and say, "No, don't do that." So the army that Parliament raised turned around and started bossing Parliament around.
Interesting aside here. My wife and I visited England in 2018 and one of the places we visited was the City of York. We did the tour of the Cathedral and at one point we got to the back of the Cathedral and there was an eight-sided room (marble walls, if I recall). The guide told us how the church wardens would meet there to discuss church business. However, under the Commonwealth, everything in the area was being run by a military general. So there was no more meetings of the church wardens. So one fellow applied to be allowed to tear this building down and reuse the materials for another building. And since it was no longer being used, he was given permission to do so. However, a few weeks later, the man died. And so, the building was never torn down.
So under Cromwell, England was divided up into military districts.
@arabiannights1640 it's a modern song. "Conscience of parliament" is a retrospective reference to the coup you're referring to, yes. It would be crazy for them to have actually sung this song at the time
amazing
This is a modern song, from an album called Strawhead by a band called New Model Army.
The New Model Army was not led by Oliver Cromwell until the third Civil War/the Anglo-Scotch War after Sir Thomas Fairfax, who was general and Parliamentary commander-in-chief during the first and second Civil War, resigned his commission in opposition to the war with Charles II.
Parliament was not against the monarchy... how could it be when the Crown is part of Parliament just as the House of Commons and the House of Lords are. They fought for Parliament against the arbitrary prerogative of the Crown, not the institution itself... they wanted to restore Parliamentary Monarchy by bringing the King and his royal government back under the control of Parliamentary procedure... until the Army became dominated by radicals.
Also when they say "Marching for commonwealth, God, and the land!" they don't mean "the Commonwealth of England" as in the structure of government from 1649-1653 and again from 1659-1660... they mean "public welfare, general good or advantage", its was a phrase popular at that time dating from around the 15th century and was an early translation of the Latin word res publica... also the old meaning of "wealth", meant "well-being" so, said term literally meant "common well-being"... which is also what is implied by the name "Commonwealth of England"... but like with other states today that have the word "Democratic" in its name, the opposite is true... and as we Englishmen found out, the establishment of our English Parliamentary Monarchy was itself for the commonwealth of England... and both James I and Charles I did their upmost to undermine that great commonwealth that England had... and it took until 1688/89 to properly restore it.
The final form of the army during the 3rd civil war and into the regime he did lead, so I used the recent most form of the army. Parliament was no against the monarchy in the beginning, but the Roundhead side turned into anti-monarchist during the first civil war, it warped into Parliament being anti monarchy during the war and the foundation of the smaller English commonwealth in 1649, so I used the most recent examples of the army, and during the times they were getting increasingly radical as the war progressed into the commonwealth days. And I’m not saying about the glorious revolution and such, pretty right there.
You are correct, it was led by Sir Thomas Fairfax, but all those conflicts were between Parliament and King CharlesI. And, it was he who raised his banner at Nottingham to start the Civil Wars. It wasn't the radicals. Fairfax was Presbyterian and had Parliamentarian positions, but he backed off when Parliament proscribed sentence against Charles I. He was the best soldier, but he was not a politician. He was deeply disturbed by the Protestant division. Actually, the Army was lead by Independents, who became Congregationalists. They were actually the ones where we got much of our ideas of liberty from.
The Commonwealth was a republic, though that changed when Cromwell stepped in and made it a Protectorate. This was supposed to be until they could restore the republic.
You are right, it wasn't until the Glorious Revolution that the original intention of Parliament was to make a parliamentarian monarchy, which meant no one was above the law, which was important to Fairfax - he often referred to the Magna Carta. The Stuarts wanted to be absolutist like the French kings.This absolutism and Laudian reforms forced the conflict. If Prince Henry had lived, Charles older brother, I think the civil wars would have been averted.
Amazing!
Back here again just like my ancestors.
Get your pikes boys, the king and parliament has betrayed the people.
Parliament has
they tricked us with the restoration we want our country back in all ways
This is written by Strawhead
The song originated some time in the 1640s.
@@joanneparkin5389 no it didn't, it's a modern song
@@quasicroissant it said in the description
@@joanneparkin5389 the description is wrong. It's a song by a modern folk band called Strawhead
@@quasicroissantThe issue is that Strawhead recorded many genuine Civil War songs such as ‘When the King enjoys his own again’ and ‘the royal head is severed’ which we have records of dating back to the 1640s. So it’s hard to know whether they actually wrote this song or used some earlier record. I can’t find any copyright ownership over the song and tune.
Might need a newer model army here soon.
God Save the Lord Protector!
Unfortunately for you. Cromwell was not a liberal.
@@fyrdman2185 I know that
Blue Bonnets over the border
Charles i team
Too bad this group became a totalitarian religious faith. Cromwell basically outlawed other forms of Christianity. (Especially Catholicism) and music and dancing. He made parts of I relsnd a wzsteland when attacked Stuart supporters and Catholics there.
Based Cromwell
@@fyrdman2185 He also closed Parliament which supposedly fighting to support. A very mixed character.
Bruh, no he didn’t, actually study this period in history
@@cromwell.is.awesome Everything i am aware of says that he closed Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector. I can't say how long that closed it for; but he and his form 0f Christianity ruled until his death. His son initially took over and eventually the Stuart line was returned. That lasted about one generation.
@@cromwell.is.awesomebruh no to you. He did f**k over Ireland . How can you call yourself a historian when all you do is suck up to biased sources so you never have to compete a single argument in your life.