Watch the film "Cromwell" you will really enjoy it Richard Harris portrays Cromwell and Sir Alec Guinness portrays Charles the first, it's an excellent film.
Im English and 71. I don’t remember ever being taught Cromwell was anything but a villain. That was a very long time ago and I think he’s seen in a more understanding light now. By the way, the Battle of Worcester is mentioned in the film.There is a very old engraving that shows Cromwell standing on the steps of Worcester Cathedral with a full grown bear by his side. The animal was thought to be his witches familiar. It might be worth looking that up too
8:56 Scotland did not unify with England in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became king James I of England (on the death of Elizabeth I). It was the union of the two crowns only. So the monarch, James, was king of both England and Scotland, but the countries of England and Scotland were still separate until 1707 when the Acts of Union came into force. Only at that point were the countries and the crowns of England and Scotland united. Therefore, only having a union of crowns (rather than also a union of countries) made for a complicated interaction between the single king and his two countries, That's partly why Charles' attempt to introduce the Book of Common Prayer into Scotland went down like a lead balloon. He may have been king there, but the two countries were still separate, and so there was the feeling of "just because England has this why should we as a separate country follow it?" on top of rejecting it on a religious basis. Charles (as his father, James, before him) had wanted to introduce this religious uniformity between England and Scotland as the first step to uniting his two kingdoms.
Connor, if 99% of the British public were asked in a quiz about the events of the Civil War, they would get 0% correct answers... so please don't worry about this. You probably know more than the vast majority of Brits. Despite my name I am a Brit, and very very few people I have ever known are aware of anything that happened in the Civil War. One good thing.... when Charles II came back to rule, he was a naughty boy and had a huge number of illegitimate kids. The good times rolled, gambling, pubs and theatres were opened again, and sex, yes, there was loads of it.
I very much doubt if, as you assert, o% of the british public could not answer questions on the civil war with a correct answer. It,s my experience that they generally can.
By killing the king he broke the idea of the divine right of kings. To understand Cromwell you need to understand how religious people were in that period.
The execution of a traitor brought forward the idea that the people are the most important thing in England. That still is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy.
Oliver Cromwell 's surname name was actually Williams, not Cromwell. He found out that he was distantly related to Thomas Cromwell, and changed his name accordingly.
Charles took a body of troops into the House of Commons. When the Queen opens Parliament look out for the ceremony of when the her representative goes to the House of Commons to summon the MP's. The door is slammed in his face - this is a symbolic reference to the above event and the independence of the Commons
Mixed feelings about Cromwell I would say. The irony: they didn't want an absolute monarch, with more power to an elected parliament and killed the king for it... but then Cromwell became essentially a dictator/absolute power himself... the way he treated the Irish people was also absolutely disgusting. But ultimately, he was an influence on England/the UK, in becoming a democracy/constitutional monarchy (Also during this era 'the Putney debates' would have an influence on enlightenment, democracy, liberty, etc).
Cromwell is not seen as a hero in the same way as Nelson or Wellington, but he gave us a framework for democratic government that has endured for more than 350 years. The Queen can no longer rule by decree nor can the British governnent, but ironically, The President of the United States can.
@@iriscollins7583 She meant rarely. Dunno if QE2 ever did use this power but even then the substance of the orders written are controlled by the government still.
What it was Connor was this.... Kings at this time believed they were appointed by God, and could they could do exactly what they wanted, and were accountable to no-one. Yes, bollocks means testicles. But also it usually means "a lot of complete rubbish, nonsense, crap"
The rule's of war were clear,If you were sieged and a breach was made in the wall to take the breach would cost a lot of lives to the attacker.The besieged were offered the right of surrender under term's,If they did not surrender,all men under arm's in the town were shot.They were the International rules of war . Cromwell abided by the rules of war at the time.
in my personal Cromwell is best leader Britain has had I know many of you will not agree but i personal live in east Anglia and he is still remembered and loved were I live and about battle of Naseby I live few miles from there ever year there's is a re-enactment of it if your in Northamptonshire on 14th of June you should go to it it is amazing
It was owned by one of his uncles also called Oliver. He may have been in the original building but not that one as the current house is Georgian. I drove past it every day for twenty five years to work until recently. I have to presume you were there after 1983?
@@johnp8131 yes I was there in the late 2000s. Lived there for a year whilst taking care of the grounds.. Then went on to work for the owner at the time Anant in London for a year too.
The deaths from the civil war, as a percentage of the population. about 3.6% of the population. (In World War 1 around 2.6% of the population died). The US suffered 2.5 approximate in its civil war. Charles Stuart lost his head, for his part in this terrible war. Put me down as a Leveller.
Magna Carta, which one? You are aware there was a few of them. Dr. David Starkey gives a good account of them all. He is a renowned historian, on RUclips also.
To me he's the Greatest Englishman ever. He was the only real English ruler after 1066. And every great man who's a military leader has committed atrocities, especially to subdue a region prone to rebellion like ireland. Caesar did it to the Gauls, Alexander did plenty of it to the Persians and other people. So that's not really an argument as to why we shouldn't like him. To me he got rid of the Norman Yoke. And was ultimately responsible for the British Empire.
Someone obviously had a British bias education. If by subdue the Irish you mean "Systematic slaughter of unarmed civilians and and destruction of whole villages and communities just because they wanted to worship in the religion of their choice. Then your right. Just up the road from me in a village called Fuerty, there is the remains of a church, which when Cromwells army invaded the unarmed farmers and their families were rounded up and locked in the church, the church was then set on fire. Men Women and children were burnt alive. The Irish that survived Cromwell were forced off their land and pushed into the west of Ireland to try and survive on farming on bog land and stone.
@@KernowWarrior Stories like that are exaggerated, but the way he did those things were the norm back then. And yes he did push the irish off their lands to the west. Again that was how things worked back then.
@@fyrdman2185 No they are not exaggerated, it happened. Whole communities were wiped out. "that is how things were done back then" is no excuse. Slavery used to be how things were done "back then." But we don't celebrate slave traders. So why should we celebrate a man who committed genocide "back then".
@@KernowWarrior Well i'll celebrate him, because if we had not been the conquerors, someone else would've conquered us and probably would've committed some gruesome atrocities against us just like the Normans did, that's just how things worked back then and still does now and will definitely be the norm soon in the future. And the irish were by no means innocent themselves, they were pretty well know for 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 people until we put a stop to it.
@@KernowWarrior Someone clearly had the biased Irish 'poor us' victims till the end education! You mention the burning of women and children alive as though it happened yesterday... it may surprise you to know that the entire world was far more barbaric then, including pious and blameless (don't laugh) Ireland.
The English Civil was a game of 2 halves. The bloodlust of the second half was alien to the simple objectives of the first half. My direct ancestor was Sir William Waller, Ol Cromwell's commanding officer during the first half. WW's first cousin was Hardress Waller, a more fervent Roundhead & ultimately a Regicide.
22:42 - "Wasn't Spain also Catholic? That doesn't seem that crazy." Honestly, it can't be emphasised enough how much Catholicism was despised in 17th-century England, particularly by Calvinists. Though a devout Puritan himself, Cromwell was actually fairly pragmatic when push came to shove, which is why he was willing to engage in that clever bit of realpolitik, siding with one Catholic nation against another. But you have to remember that Parliament and the army were packed full of men who literally and sincerely believed that the Pope was the Antichrist, that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent (some believed as soon as 1666, due to the Biblical significance of 666 as the number of the Beast), and as they regarded England as the only truly "godly" nation on earth, that the Lord of Hosts would inevitably want to set up shop in Blighty for his big comeback tour. They'd fought a long and bloody war against the King, not just for political reasons, but because they thought he was planning to restore Catholicism to the nation, have them all massacred or imprisoned, and ruin the chances of establishing Christ's kingdom on earth; now they saw Cromwell hobnobbing with the minions of the Antichrist as well. As always with this time period, before uttering the words "that doesn't seem that crazy", you first have to put yourself in the mindset of people who, by most modern standards, were as crazy as they come. (By way of illustration, the Barebones Parliament was named after the Puritan leader Praisegod Barebones, who - evidently deciding that his own name didn't quite have enough of a pious ring to it - christened his firstborn son If Jesus Christ Had Not Died For Thee, Thou Hadst Been Damned. And honestly, he wasn't even the most extreme of the bunch.)
Cromwell was neither good nor bad, like most historical figures he did good and bad. He was liberator and tyrant, no-one is good or evil, they just act that way... Perception is the key, ask an Irishman and he was a tyrant, ask an Englishman and he could well be considered a saviour...
@@HarveyTwoFaceDent I think you'll find every leader screws up eventually, that's why they get ousted, killed or run for the hills... democracy is just a bloodless way of replacing unpopular leadership...
Ask an Irishman anything and they'll pull up some sob story from the middle ages and then ludicrously cite it as the reason their life has not gone as they planned lol.
The housing estate I live in, in King's Norton (now part of Birmingham) is basically where the King's forces camped out in the civil war (hence the King's part) including his wife Queen Henrietta Maria and Prince Rupert. A lot of the street names are tied to it like Camp Lane and Harbinger Lane (ie the King's messenger)
To transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy was ALWAYS going to need a war to bring it about. If it had not succeeded then, there would have been a later attempt, and another and another, until Parliament wrested power from the monarchy. For that was what was at stake... is the will and whim of the King absolute, or is the King bound by the laws, laws made by parliament. To decide that question would always lead to bloodshed. We can be thankful it happened quite early in Britain AND we got it at the first attempt.
Cromwell is still considered a revered figure by some in the modern day but by no means all. In 2002 the BBC ran a series called 100 great Britons and took votes on who people considered the greatest. At the end of all the voting Cromwell finished tenth. Churchill was voted first.
@@neilgayleard3842 Worth watching if you haven't. I thought it was ten documentaries in the series and then a vote? Cromwell was championed by Richard Holmes, the late military historian. I may be wrong though as it was quite a while ago?
Cromwell was in the Tories bad books for putting the King on trial, but was popular with the Whigs and judges. Cromwell has to be seen through the lens of the time. He named his favourite daughter Elizabeth after the late Queen as there was a longing to go back to the stability of Elizabethan England.
King Charles I, was the second worst king, King John being the winner of that popularity poll. King John should have been decapitated, but died on his own. Puritans are the Protestant equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are "nice" human beings. Catholic Ireland was always conspiring with Catholic Spain, and Presbyterian Scotland conspiring with Catholic France. England wasn't yet the United Kingdom, or the center of a British Empire. And at this same time, the German Catholics and Lutherans were trying to eliminate Germany from history. GB/Ireland lost 200K, but Germany+ lost 4.5 - 8.0 million.
Cromwell wasn’t really a Dictator like those throughout history. He firmly believed he was doing god’s work and felt unworthy throughout his protectorship. Real dictators think they are god and demand the people worship them. Cromwell never sought to be worshipped by the English people, in fact, despite his faults, wanted a quiet life.
The Irish wanted a quiet life too. Didn't work out too well for them, did it? Or the Scots for that matter, and yet they too were victims of Cromwell's murderous rampage.
@@jackdubz4247 not sure excusing his treatment over the Irish Catholics at all. Blame religious sectarianism for that, was going on a 100 years before Cromwell.
You were asking in another video about castles about ships and how they evolved . There are many videos on tall ships as well as the battle of Trafalgar. Also the custom that was maintained in the navy training onnmanning the mast which is most interesting on the training required.
as an Englishman whose knows most of the stuff you react to. this doesnt distract from the enjoy of your reactions. your pursuit of knowledge is very impressive
September 3rd was a significant date in Cromwell's life. At the Battle of Dunbar (Sep 3, 1650) Cromwell defeated the Scots and won the Second Civil war. A year later to the day he won the Battle of Worcester his "Crowning Mercy" where he beat Charles II and won the Third and final Civil War. He died on Sept 3, 1658 the anniversary of his two greatest victories.
So English King's, since Magna Carta, had some checks on their power. Edward I, Edward III, Henry VII all went out of their way to balance power through law. Henry VIII was supremely powerfuland probably the closest to a total monarch but still respected Parliament as did Elizabeth. James I and VI was probably one of the most intelligent, educated and cunning of the monarchs of the period, he had to be because being King of Scots required very careful political balancing if you wanted to live! His son, Charles, however was pretty hapless and cursed to be born into anothet period of religious turmoil. Unlike their French counterparts, English King's were somewhat restrained in their ability to rule.
You are right in your assessment Connor: it was a time of rivalry between the King and Parliament, which was of course the base of the English Civil War, which cost a lot of lives and divided the country like no other time. The Kind could not raise taxes without the approval of Parliament. That is what Charles 1st did not like, and frequently closed it.
@@davidhoward2487 Yes, I meant the King. A typo I am afraid... I was trained to always proof read what I wrote, and I failed miserably. In a general sense, I have never been a fan of Charles I. His stubborn intransigence over years caused huge loss of life, including his own.
Cromwell's legacy has been written by people who are basically Monarchists, For his time he was a champion for the idea of a democratic republic and as such must be applauded, sadly as with so much of history it was possibly an opportunity missed.
At this time, the King was basically in charge of governing the country. His main weakness was that only Parliament could legally raise taxes. This led to a cat and mouse relationship because Parliament refused to raise taxes for Charles unless he transferred some of his powers and rights to them. When he refused to do this, Charles had to raise taxes himself, which was unconstitutional and unpopular. The result, eventually, was the Civil War, which Charles began in an attempt to impose the 'Divine Right of Kings' on England. He failed, which led to the abolition of the monarchy for a decade.
A very complex man, and in fact was more akin to a problem solver as there were many difficult issues that could only be resolved one way as King Charles would not listen and paid the price. There were far more extreme puritans than him so the later part of his rule became a balancing act that his death left a void which only the recall of the monarchy with constraints on it's power would fix. Ironically the final victory of parliamentarian thinking took place years later with the Glorious revolution of 1688 and Bill of Rights. Compared to the events in France a hundred years later the British got off lightly in the start of the transition to a more democratic government.
Just like Robert fitz Walter (1162-1235), who called himself 'Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church', the rebel barons captured London on 17 May 1215, and the following month finally forced King John to grant Magna Carta, I'm sure he was seen as saint and sinner too.
The main things we were taught about Cromwell and that period in history when I was at school??? 1, He was more of a dictator than a parliamentarian. 2, He actually BANNED Christmas 3, The phrase "warts and all" is attributed to him, he wanted a painting done and rather have some perfectly flawless image, he "said" paint my image - warts and all (he had warts on his face) 4, He absolutely despised Charles 1, nearly as much as he despised Catholics So to sum up, he was a puritan wart covered dictator who was a religious bigot and hated Christmas shopping!!! Seriously, that is basically all I remember about this period in history
FYI, the monarch still has the power to dissolve Parliament is she/he wants to, they just don't exercise that right. There is power behind the throne, but there is no abuse of that power as there was with Charles I.
You should check this out sir.At the beginning of the war, fifty thousand Englishmen inhabited some twenty colonies in the Americas. Most of the colonies were founded in the decade prior to the start of the English Civil War (1642-1651) with the oldest existing being the Colony of Virginia (1607) and Bermuda (1609). The vast majority of the adult population were first generation settlers and thousands returned to the British Isles to fight or involve themselves in the politics of the Commonwealth of England (1649-1660).All good fun.
When you're a kid , old enough to know some history and you hear you are distantly related to Oliver Cromwell you are mildly impressed but then you learn about who he was 😣
Both the films "Cromwell" with Alec Guinness and Richard Harris, and "To Kill A King" with Rupert Everett and Tim Roth are very good accounts of the events, both giving quite well balanced portrayals of the antagonists.
We would have to run up and down Edge Hill when i was at school in Oxfordshire. On one run i remember having my plimsoll shoe sucked off in the ice cold sticky muddy water of the trench at the foot of the hill . Never thought at the time of the events that took place on that hill.
Had Cromwell lived he would have made sure that England remained a republic . He was Lord Chief Protector sold the crown jewels, commitment war crimes and sent armed soldiers to parliament just like King Charles did.
Cromwell needs to be seen as what he was, a man reluctant to inflict pain or go to war but a man who accepted that there needed to be action to unify a country and bring lasting peace, he did this.
One lasting legacy of Cromwell was the Rule of the Major-Generals. It was ans is considered so bad (among other things Christmas was banned) that it has left an abiding adversion to military rule in the Anglosphere.
Nope to both. Cromwell was a religious bigot with blood on his hands. Churchill is a racist prick who sent the army into Scotland to put down a strike. They can both rot in hell.
Did you know something Connor? since all the trouble over the King versus Parliament, even to this very day the Queen or King is NOT allowed into the House of Commons... The only place in the UK where the monarch may not go. The ritual opening of Parliament today is held in the House of Lords, not the house of Commons, because the Queen is not allowed in there.
i think Charles first was second son too- his brother should have been king but he died he was by all accounts far from prepared for the role a bit like henry VIII
If you want some sort of silver lining to this whole sorry affair, you should look up things like the Putney debates - the early beginning of libral democracy were essentially put in place by them. The various parties involved like the Levellers (not to be confused with the band) are also worth looking into.
I have always been very surprised at the 'modern' ideas advanced for liberal democracy at the Putney debates... way ahead of their time. The ideas did not go down very well with the powers that be.
The main problem was that the Royal house were the Stuarts from Scotland.They unlike the English followed the Divine right of king's.The English had a parliament to regulate taxes and had had that system for hundreds of years.
Never think of or get the English Monarchy confused with the Monarch be they King, Queen or Protector or the Royal Dynasty/Family. That may seem impossible, mad or oxymoronic but it is the truth. We have "removed" Monarchs quite frequently when they displeased us - Edward VIII (1936, that recent), James II (1688), obviously Charles I (1649) but also Richard II, Edward II (a red hot poker up his fundament) Richard III... the list goes on. And we removed the Royal House/Dynasty/Family of Plantagenet (York) in 1485 with the Tudors, Stuart in 1688 (although James II's daughters did remain as Mary II and Queen Anne) with The Dutch House of Orange and then in 1714 with the Hanoverians. The Monarchy continued except for the brief interlude of The Republic 1649-1660 and was found to be indispensable and brought back in a much reformed way in Charles II. This should never be forgotten as it is possible that should the current Prince of Wales become Charles III or whatever and have tendencies towards "the divine right of Kings" he and the House/Dynasty of Windsor (in reality Battenberg-Saxe Coburg-Gotha - they changed their name to Windsor in 1917) can be removed and replaced.
With regards to Cromwell behaviour in Ireland, the historian Simon Schama argues that, the latest historical research suggests that Oliver Cromwell was not a genocidal maniac, or a war criminal, but in Schama's opinion he was an English Puritan bigot, who thought that the English had every right to occupy and colonise Roman Catholic Ireland.
Great reaction. Do not fret it, buddy. You probably have a better handle on these matters than large numbers of English citizens your age or less. As more significant dates are added to the timeline, the important ones that were there already must diminish. However, if you ever do get to the old country and have a few days spare, get across to Ireland. That is the Republic of Ireland, not the bit at the top righthand corner. Gently (very gently) poke and prod and you will find that Cromwell's unpopularity still burns strong and hot. You would think he had only just left yesterday, rather than 370 years ago. As for digging up people you wanted to seriously disrespect, your surprise is... well... surprising. They did not have television in those days. Oh, and you better believe the casualty/ death toll in the civil war(s). Nearly double the percentage of population than World War I - with much more primitive equipment.
There are already enough religious bigots in the Tory party. Most of them Brexiteers who rake in massive "off the books" donations from the American and Russian far right.
Cromwell had the opportunity to do a full French revolution. I wonder how our history would have been different if we had had a Republic 400 years ago.
The English monarch lost the right to levy taxes, without the consent of what would evolve to become Parliament, in the thirteenth century, with the signing of Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta wasnt a big deal to the ordinary people, however it was the first charter EVER in history to limit a Kings rule and became the the first so called "bill of rights" there fore the dye was cast for increasing excursions into the concept of a democratic Government system. These systems, formed out over time and out of experience were later ignored in the New World as the USA developed its's own system which has led to the chaotic and unfair way it now elects representatives and rules the country, not at the will of the people and not for the people but for the will of the party. The US could co worse than change it's political model and the recent elections in Alaska should be a mirror for thought that this is the way to go.
The Royalists when king Charles the 2nd was reinstated as king, committed Christian desecration of Cromwells grave by digging up his dead corpse & then executing his dead body. Charles the 1st got what he deserved & he would most certainly have executed the parliamentarians had he won the civil war. The most English ever killed in any war they ever fought. Tragic!
Sorry to express my opinion on this, but I genuinely feel that the United States has still to reach this ponit. You are dragging it out. Eventually, you will seek a Head of State that is non-politically appointed/ affiliated/supported. Seems the inevitable way to go?
Oliver Cromwell was infact not Oliver Cromwell his real name was Oliver Williams and his family were Welsh and I'm related to him and most people in Wales with the name Williams are related to him his father was sir Henry Williams
I have read extensively on Cromwell over many years. I am convinced he was a religious bigot who happened to be a very fine military general. His slaughter of 3000 Irish rebels, with many of his army refusing to do the murders, is a slur on his reputation to this day. I am afraid I do not respect the man.
Weren't most of them bigots back then? It's no excuse, however his son-in-law Henry Ireton was worse and is probably the one that committed the slaughter in Ireland.
Very gay reasoning to not respect him. Every great military general has committed atrocities. To conquer an entire nation one must be ruthless. What do you want him to do, blow them a kiss, when they were slaughtering English settlers? And rebelling
@@fyrdman2185 This is an offensive sexual slur. You have no right to be sexually abusive to people, whether they are gay or not. Not only do I disrespect Cromwell for his puritan bigot, but I am appalled so religious a man was so hypocritically murderous. I find little reason to respect you as well.
@@antoineduchamp4931 oh boo hoo, everyone's a bigot, who cares. Cromwell made England great, i don't care what methods he employed to achieve that greatness. He was a great Conqueror, just like Ceasar, Alexander and Napoleon. And they all committed atrocities towards their enemies. Grow some bolllox
@@fyrdman2185 And I read that he was very strict with his soldiers, if any of them raped a woman he was hung, I was Catholic now atheist. he treated the Catholic residents of Drogheda badly but you must remember that the people of Drogheda earlier had driven their Protestant neighbours right intob the river Boyne and drowned 300 of them men women even babies, I used hate Cromwell from the history I was taught but delved further and now admire him
It was the end of civil wars in England. The Jacobite '15 and '45 were Scottish affairs. There have been a number of wars in Ireland, Irish Rebellion 1796, 1916-20 the Irish War of Independen, (also the Irish civil war), and last but not least the recent Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-1998). BTW "recent Troubles" was also the phrase used for the conflicts of the 1640s in the three nation's "Indemnity and Oblivion Acts" of the early 1660s which drew a legal veil over the conflicts.
@@firstlast7052 They weren’t really as the last Jacobite rebellion reached Derby. There were English and Scots on both sides. Fair enough the battles were mostly in Scotland 🏴 but the whole purpose was to overthrow the British throne
It has to be remembered that Cromwell could easily have taken the Crown for himself he was even offered it he refused I think on two occasions, He’s seen by many as at least an anti hero but by others he’s seen as a Tyrant worse than the king, I think he had to be tough and tyrannical to hold onto power otherwise the civil war was all for nothing.
He did take the crown in all but name. Her gave him self the title of Lord Protector, which he decided should be a hereditary position. Sounds like a king to me.
@@KernowWarrior Partially correct. There is no proof that he decided on his son to succeed himself? Some said he did, more said he nominated his son-in-law Charles Fleetwood, both only verbally and others said he nominated no-one. What is true, is that Parliament gave the position to Richard not his father.
@@KernowWarrior No, not confused. I know much of the history on this can be contradictory due to propaganda. Also it is true that his son succeded him. However as I just said! There is no documentary evidence, that Oliver asked Parliament to have Richard succeed him. Just hearsay! But, Parliament, upon the death of Cromwell, were unsure what to do and therefore pressured Richard into taking it. If you wish to debate this further, take it up with Stuart Orme, the curator of the Cromwell Museum or just check out his channel. From another Cornishman that now lives in the other St Ives in Cambs.
Watch the film "Cromwell" you will really enjoy it Richard Harris portrays Cromwell and Sir Alec Guinness portrays Charles the first, it's an excellent film.
Im English and 71. I don’t remember ever being taught Cromwell was anything but a villain. That was a very long time ago and I think he’s seen in a more understanding light now.
By the way, the Battle of Worcester is mentioned in the film.There is a very old engraving that shows Cromwell standing on the steps of Worcester Cathedral with a full grown bear by his side. The animal was thought to be his witches familiar. It might be worth looking that up too
Odd June ,I`m in my 50`s I was always taught the reverse to you
Yeah the Irish would have a word or two to say about Cromwell
8:56 Scotland did not unify with England in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became king James I of England (on the death of Elizabeth I). It was the union of the two crowns only. So the monarch, James, was king of both England and Scotland, but the countries of England and Scotland were still separate until 1707 when the Acts of Union came into force. Only at that point were the countries and the crowns of England and Scotland united. Therefore, only having a union of crowns (rather than also a union of countries) made for a complicated interaction between the single king and his two countries, That's partly why Charles' attempt to introduce the Book of Common Prayer into Scotland went down like a lead balloon. He may have been king there, but the two countries were still separate, and so there was the feeling of "just because England has this why should we as a separate country follow it?" on top of rejecting it on a religious basis. Charles (as his father, James, before him) had wanted to introduce this religious uniformity between England and Scotland as the first step to uniting his two kingdoms.
Thats how I understand it too!.
And the UK wasn’t formed until 1925
I agree with the saying that' Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
Connor, if 99% of the British public were asked in a quiz about the events of the Civil War, they would get 0% correct answers... so please don't worry about this. You probably know more than the vast majority of Brits. Despite my name I am a Brit, and very very few people I have ever known are aware of anything that happened in the Civil War. One good thing.... when Charles II came back to rule, he was a naughty boy and had a huge number of illegitimate kids. The good times rolled, gambling, pubs and theatres were opened again, and sex, yes, there was loads of it.
I very much doubt if, as you assert, o% of the british public could not answer questions on the civil war with a correct answer. It,s my experience that they generally can.
By killing the king he broke the idea of the divine right of kings. To understand Cromwell you need to understand how religious people were in that period.
The execution of a traitor brought forward the idea that the people are the most important thing in England. That still is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy.
Oliver Cromwell 's surname name was actually Williams, not Cromwell. He found out that he was distantly related to Thomas Cromwell, and changed his name accordingly.
@@iriscollins7583 I never knew that.
Charles took a body of troops into the House of Commons.
When the Queen opens Parliament look out for the ceremony of when the her representative goes to the House of Commons to summon the MP's.
The door is slammed in his face - this is a symbolic reference to the above event and the independence of the Commons
Mixed feelings about Cromwell I would say. The irony: they didn't want an absolute monarch, with more power to an elected parliament and killed the king for it... but then Cromwell became essentially a dictator/absolute power himself... the way he treated the Irish people was also absolutely disgusting. But ultimately, he was an influence on England/the UK, in becoming a democracy/constitutional monarchy (Also during this era 'the Putney debates' would have an influence on enlightenment, democracy, liberty, etc).
Cromwell is not seen as a hero in the same way as Nelson or Wellington, but he gave us a framework for democratic government that has endured for more than 350 years. The Queen can no longer rule by decree nor can the British governnent, but ironically, The President of the United States can.
She can issue a Queen-in-council or a Queen-on-council, the equivalent of executive orders.
@@joshuagarnham9703 I'm surprised Boris hasn't been crucified by now if thats the case.
@@joshuagarnham9703 but she relay has done that
@@daniellastuart3145 translate please.
@@iriscollins7583 She meant rarely. Dunno if QE2 ever did use this power but even then the substance of the orders written are controlled by the government still.
What it was Connor was this.... Kings at this time believed they were appointed by God, and could they could do exactly what they wanted, and were accountable to no-one.
Yes, bollocks means testicles. But also it usually means "a lot of complete rubbish, nonsense, crap"
The rule's of war were clear,If you were sieged and a breach was made in the wall to take the breach would cost a lot of lives to the attacker.The besieged were offered the right of surrender under term's,If they did not surrender,all men under arm's in the town were shot.They were the International rules of war . Cromwell abided by the rules of war at the time.
He slaughtered women and children he was a war lord
Bollocks can also mean something is good. “It’s the bollocks” or “it’s the dog’s bollocks.” So yeah, a multipurpose word 😂
Lol have you seen that very type of conversation in the film the 51st state where bollocks is explained to Samuel L Jackson its a classic
in my personal Cromwell is best leader Britain has had I know many of you will not agree but i personal live in east Anglia and he is still remembered and loved were I live and about battle of Naseby I live few miles from there ever year there's is a re-enactment of it if your in Northamptonshire on 14th of June you should go to it it is amazing
Maybe in England, in Scotland we are not a fan.
I used to live in Oliver Cromwells house in Perry near huntingdon. It's called gaynes Hall and it was also where troops trained for WW2.
It was owned by one of his uncles also called Oliver. He may have been in the original building but not that one as the current house is Georgian. I drove past it every day for twenty five years to work until recently. I have to presume you were there after 1983?
@@johnp8131 yes I was there in the late 2000s. Lived there for a year whilst taking care of the grounds.. Then went on to work for the owner at the time Anant in London for a year too.
The deaths from the civil war, as a percentage of the population.
about 3.6% of the population. (In World War 1 around 2.6% of the population died). The US suffered 2.5 approximate in its civil war. Charles Stuart lost his head, for his part in this terrible war. Put me down as a Leveller.
Magna Carta, which one? You are aware there was a few of them. Dr. David Starkey gives a good account of them all. He is a renowned historian, on RUclips also.
Magna Carta has been repealed, with only four articles remaining.
To me he's the Greatest Englishman ever. He was the only real English ruler after 1066. And every great man who's a military leader has committed atrocities, especially to subdue a region prone to rebellion like ireland. Caesar did it to the Gauls, Alexander did plenty of it to the Persians and other people. So that's not really an argument as to why we shouldn't like him. To me he got rid of the Norman Yoke. And was ultimately responsible for the British Empire.
Someone obviously had a British bias education. If by subdue the Irish you mean "Systematic slaughter of unarmed civilians and and destruction of whole villages and communities just because they wanted to worship in the religion of their choice. Then your right. Just up the road from me in a village called Fuerty, there is the remains of a church, which when Cromwells army invaded the unarmed farmers and their families were rounded up and locked in the church, the church was then set on fire. Men Women and children were burnt alive. The Irish that survived Cromwell were forced off their land and pushed into the west of Ireland to try and survive on farming on bog land and stone.
@@KernowWarrior Stories like that are exaggerated, but the way he did those things were the norm back then. And yes he did push the irish off their lands to the west. Again that was how things worked back then.
@@fyrdman2185 No they are not exaggerated, it happened. Whole communities were wiped out. "that is how things were done back then" is no excuse. Slavery used to be how things were done "back then." But we don't celebrate slave traders. So why should we celebrate a man who committed genocide "back then".
@@KernowWarrior Well i'll celebrate him, because if we had not been the conquerors, someone else would've conquered us and probably would've committed some gruesome atrocities against us just like the Normans did, that's just how things worked back then and still does now and will definitely be the norm soon in the future. And the irish were by no means innocent themselves, they were pretty well know for 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 people until we put a stop to it.
@@KernowWarrior Someone clearly had the biased Irish 'poor us' victims till the end education! You mention the burning of women and children alive as though it happened yesterday... it may surprise you to know that the entire world was far more barbaric then, including pious and blameless (don't laugh) Ireland.
The English Civil was a game of 2 halves. The bloodlust of the second half was alien to the simple objectives of the first half. My direct ancestor was Sir William Waller, Ol Cromwell's commanding officer during the first half. WW's first cousin was Hardress Waller, a more fervent Roundhead & ultimately a Regicide.
A lot like the French Revolution
Started off with high idealism, but dissolved into paranoia and wanton bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed
22:42 - "Wasn't Spain also Catholic? That doesn't seem that crazy." Honestly, it can't be emphasised enough how much Catholicism was despised in 17th-century England, particularly by Calvinists. Though a devout Puritan himself, Cromwell was actually fairly pragmatic when push came to shove, which is why he was willing to engage in that clever bit of realpolitik, siding with one Catholic nation against another. But you have to remember that Parliament and the army were packed full of men who literally and sincerely believed that the Pope was the Antichrist, that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent (some believed as soon as 1666, due to the Biblical significance of 666 as the number of the Beast), and as they regarded England as the only truly "godly" nation on earth, that the Lord of Hosts would inevitably want to set up shop in Blighty for his big comeback tour. They'd fought a long and bloody war against the King, not just for political reasons, but because they thought he was planning to restore Catholicism to the nation, have them all massacred or imprisoned, and ruin the chances of establishing Christ's kingdom on earth; now they saw Cromwell hobnobbing with the minions of the Antichrist as well. As always with this time period, before uttering the words "that doesn't seem that crazy", you first have to put yourself in the mindset of people who, by most modern standards, were as crazy as they come.
(By way of illustration, the Barebones Parliament was named after the Puritan leader Praisegod Barebones, who - evidently deciding that his own name didn't quite have enough of a pious ring to it - christened his firstborn son If Jesus Christ Had Not Died For Thee, Thou Hadst Been Damned. And honestly, he wasn't even the most extreme of the bunch.)
All i can say to that is "dear god"!
Cromwell was neither good nor bad, like most historical figures he did good and bad. He was liberator and tyrant, no-one is good or evil, they just act that way... Perception is the key, ask an Irishman and he was a tyrant, ask an Englishman and he could well be considered a saviour...
Bit like that Austrian lad, great for the economy , pretty bad at human rights
@@HarveyTwoFaceDent I think you'll find every leader screws up eventually, that's why they get ousted, killed or run for the hills... democracy is just a bloodless way of replacing unpopular leadership...
Ask an Irishman anything and they'll pull up some sob story from the middle ages and then ludicrously cite it as the reason their life has not gone as they planned lol.
@@rnw2739 Ask a twat a question and he’ll reply with your response
@@HarveyTwoFaceDent Stunned to silence with such a cutting reply....oooohhh...
Enjoy your mash
A statue of Olive Cromwell (cast in Bronze?) stands outside Parliament.
And another in our market place in St Ives. The bigger one not Cornwall!
Sraing across towards Westminster Abbey and its bust of Charles I
The housing estate I live in, in King's Norton (now part of Birmingham) is basically where the King's forces camped out in the civil war (hence the King's part) including his wife Queen Henrietta Maria and Prince Rupert. A lot of the street names are tied to it like Camp Lane and Harbinger Lane (ie the King's messenger)
Hawksley? I’m from kings norton as well small world 😂
@@vamthegreat
Pool Farm.
To transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy was ALWAYS going to need a war to bring it about. If it had not succeeded then, there would have been a later attempt, and another and another, until Parliament wrested power from the monarchy. For that was what was at stake... is the will and whim of the King absolute, or is the King bound by the laws, laws made by parliament. To decide that question would always lead to bloodshed. We can be thankful it happened quite early in Britain AND we got it at the first attempt.
Indeed and look what happened in France.
@@ericadams3428 And Russia!
Cromwell is still considered a revered figure by some in the modern day but by no means all. In 2002 the BBC ran a series called 100 great Britons and took votes on who people considered the greatest. At the end of all the voting Cromwell finished tenth. Churchill was voted first.
A BBC poll. Really.
@@neilgayleard3842 Worth watching if you haven't. I thought it was ten documentaries in the series and then a vote? Cromwell was championed by Richard Holmes, the late military historian. I may be wrong though as it was quite a while ago?
Cromwell was in the Tories bad books for putting the King on trial, but was popular with the Whigs and judges. Cromwell has to be seen through the lens of the time. He named his favourite daughter Elizabeth after the late Queen as there was a longing to go back to the stability of Elizabethan England.
Many people here view Cromwell romantically forgetting, or even not knowing the was or at least became a fully fledged dictator.
Weren't they all at the time?
The greatest Englishman. Because of the long term effect he had on the country even today.
?
The Irish have very strong opinions on whether or not Cromwell was a hero.
Recommended Listening: 'Oliver's Army' - Elvis Costello.
King Charles I, was the second worst king, King John being the winner of that popularity poll. King John should have been decapitated, but died on his own. Puritans are the Protestant equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are "nice" human beings. Catholic Ireland was always conspiring with Catholic Spain, and Presbyterian Scotland conspiring with Catholic France. England wasn't yet the United Kingdom, or the center of a British Empire. And at this same time, the German Catholics and Lutherans were trying to eliminate Germany from history. GB/Ireland lost 200K, but Germany+ lost 4.5 - 8.0 million.
Cromwell wasn’t really a Dictator like those throughout history. He firmly believed he was doing god’s work and felt unworthy throughout his protectorship. Real dictators think they are god and demand the people worship them. Cromwell never sought to be worshipped by the English people, in fact, despite his faults, wanted a quiet life.
The Irish wanted a quiet life too. Didn't work out too well for them, did it? Or the Scots for that matter, and yet they too were victims of Cromwell's murderous rampage.
@@jackdubz4247 not sure excusing his treatment over the Irish Catholics at all. Blame religious sectarianism for that, was going on a 100 years before Cromwell.
@@jackdubz4247 Irish were murdering Ulster Protestants! Cromwell put those papist rebelling Irish back into their place!
We could do with a Cromwell figure today, the only prerequisite is love of nation
You were asking in another video about castles about ships and how they evolved . There are many videos on tall ships as well as the battle of Trafalgar. Also the custom that was maintained in the navy training onnmanning the mast which is most interesting on the training required.
as an Englishman whose knows most of the stuff you react to. this doesnt distract from the enjoy of your reactions. your pursuit of knowledge is very impressive
September 3rd was a significant date in Cromwell's life. At the Battle of Dunbar (Sep 3, 1650) Cromwell defeated the Scots and won the Second Civil war. A year later to the day he won the Battle of Worcester his "Crowning Mercy" where he beat Charles II and won the Third and final Civil War. He died on Sept 3, 1658 the anniversary of his two greatest victories.
Cromwell's forces should never have set foot in Scotland. It was England's Civil War. First, Second and Third.
So English King's, since Magna Carta, had some checks on their power. Edward I, Edward III, Henry VII all went out of their way to balance power through law. Henry VIII was supremely powerfuland probably the closest to a total monarch but still respected Parliament as did Elizabeth. James I and VI was probably one of the most intelligent, educated and cunning of the monarchs of the period, he had to be because being King of Scots required very careful political balancing if you wanted to live! His son, Charles, however was pretty hapless and cursed to be born into anothet period of religious turmoil.
Unlike their French counterparts, English King's were somewhat restrained in their ability to rule.
You need to watch the film with Richard Harris as Cromwell ....
Good film and a superb cast. However it's a bit from the 'Mel Gibson school of History'?
You are right in your assessment Connor: it was a time of rivalry between the King and Parliament, which was of course the base of the English Civil War, which cost a lot of lives and divided the country like no other time. The Kind could not raise taxes without the approval of Parliament. That is what Charles 1st did not like, and frequently closed it.
"The King " I think you meant...
@@davidhoward2487 Yes, I meant the King. A typo I am afraid... I was trained to always proof read what I wrote, and I failed miserably. In a general sense, I have never been a fan of Charles I. His stubborn intransigence over years caused huge loss of life, including his own.
Cromwell's legacy has been written by people who are basically Monarchists, For his time he was a champion for the idea of a democratic republic and as such must be applauded, sadly as with so much of history it was possibly an opportunity missed.
Was he really a "champion for the idea of a democratic republic" though? Or was he merely a religious bigot with delusions of grandeur?
I love the Biographics channel, they do some fascinating videos. Please will you react to their one about the Duke of Wellington?
At this time, the King was basically in charge of governing the country. His main weakness was that only Parliament could legally raise taxes. This led to a cat and mouse relationship because Parliament refused to raise taxes for Charles unless he transferred some of his powers and rights to them. When he refused to do this, Charles had to raise taxes himself, which was unconstitutional and unpopular. The result, eventually, was the Civil War, which Charles began in an attempt to impose the 'Divine Right of Kings' on England. He failed, which led to the abolition of the monarchy for a decade.
And Cromwell flogged off the best art collection of the time, possibly of all time, as well as the Crown Jewels.
A very complex man, and in fact was more akin to a problem solver as there were many difficult issues that could only be resolved one way as King Charles would not listen and paid the price. There were far more extreme puritans than him so the later part of his rule became a balancing act that his death left a void which only the recall of the monarchy with constraints on it's power would fix. Ironically the final victory of parliamentarian thinking took place years later with the Glorious revolution of 1688 and Bill of Rights. Compared to the events in France a hundred years later the British got off lightly in the start of the transition to a more democratic government.
Are you going to do the Duke of wellington biographics video?
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Lord Acton.
How do we see Cromwell? Good question, and I’m not sure I can answer it. I’m conflicted, and that is what makes this period of history interesting.
Just like Robert fitz Walter (1162-1235), who called himself 'Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church', the rebel barons captured London on 17 May 1215, and the following month finally forced King John to grant Magna Carta, I'm sure he was seen as saint and sinner too.
18:31 I judge many men on how they lead on the battlefield. Cromwell was a great strategist. I'd serve with him.
The main things we were taught about Cromwell and that period in history when I was at school???
1, He was more of a dictator than a parliamentarian.
2, He actually BANNED Christmas
3, The phrase "warts and all" is attributed to him, he wanted a painting done and rather have some perfectly flawless image, he "said" paint my image - warts and all (he had warts on his face)
4, He absolutely despised Charles 1, nearly as much as he despised Catholics
So to sum up, he was a puritan wart covered dictator who was a religious bigot and hated Christmas shopping!!!
Seriously, that is basically all I remember about this period in history
I believe pubs were banned too
One of the greatest men in history. His legacy's live on forever.
I love this history guy, he is so honest and knowledgeable.......
FYI, the monarch still has the power to dissolve Parliament is she/he wants to, they just don't exercise that right. There is power behind the throne, but there is no abuse of that power as there was with Charles I.
You should check this out sir.At the beginning of the war, fifty thousand Englishmen inhabited some twenty colonies in the Americas. Most of the colonies were founded in the decade prior to the start of the English Civil War (1642-1651) with the oldest existing being the Colony of Virginia (1607) and Bermuda (1609). The vast majority of the adult population were first generation settlers and thousands returned to the British Isles to fight or involve themselves in the politics of the Commonwealth of England (1649-1660).All good fun.
“Droyda”? There’s an h and a silent g in there somewhere. Drogheda.
When you're a kid , old enough to know some history and you hear you are distantly related to Oliver Cromwell you are mildly impressed but then you learn about who he was 😣
Both the films "Cromwell" with Alec Guinness and Richard Harris, and "To Kill A King" with Rupert Everett and Tim Roth are very good accounts of the events, both giving quite well balanced portrayals of the antagonists.
We would have to run up and down Edge Hill when i was at school in Oxfordshire. On one run i remember having my plimsoll shoe sucked off in the ice cold sticky muddy water of the trench at the foot of the hill . Never thought at the time of the events that took place on that hill.
The Queen is not just a figurehead she has a lot of powers
She is just a figurehead. That's what Cromwell did.
@@neilgayleard3842 ...tell that to the armed forces...they swear alliegance to H M The Queen, not to some second rate politician.
@@neilgayleard3842 Wrong, she has many powers - she simply never uses them.
Had Cromwell lived he would have made sure that England remained a republic . He was Lord Chief Protector sold the crown jewels, commitment war crimes and sent armed soldiers to parliament just like King Charles did.
it's not a war crime if you win
Cromwell needs to be seen as what he was, a man reluctant to inflict pain or go to war but a man who accepted that there needed to be action to unify a country and bring lasting peace, he did this.
One of the greatest if not the greatest leaders this country has ever produced. He was of the same ilk of those that founded the US.
Henry II called the first parliament after the death of King John (who signed Magna Carta in 1215 then died the following year)
One lasting legacy of Cromwell was the Rule of the Major-Generals. It was ans is considered so bad (among other things Christmas was banned) that it has left an abiding adversion to military rule in the Anglosphere.
Cromwell and Churchill are the two greatest Britons in history.
Nope to both. Cromwell was a religious bigot with blood on his hands. Churchill is a racist prick who sent the army into Scotland to put down a strike. They can both rot in hell.
Did you know something Connor? since all the trouble over the King versus Parliament, even to this very day the Queen or King is NOT allowed into the House of Commons... The only place in the UK where the monarch may not go. The ritual opening of Parliament today is held in the House of Lords, not the house of Commons, because the Queen is not allowed in there.
I do not agree with Cromwell's tactics but some things could have occurred with a bit more tact .....
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You need to react to the film cromwell it's amazing
i think Charles first was second son too- his brother should have been king but he died he was by all accounts far from prepared for the role a bit like henry VIII
If you want some sort of silver lining to this whole sorry affair, you should look up things like the Putney debates - the early beginning of libral democracy were essentially put in place by them. The various parties involved like the Levellers (not to be confused with the band) are also worth looking into.
I have always been very surprised at the 'modern' ideas advanced for liberal democracy at the Putney debates... way ahead of their time. The ideas did not go down very well with the powers that be.
The main problem was that the Royal house were the Stuarts from Scotland.They unlike the English followed the Divine right of king's.The English had a parliament to regulate taxes and had had that system for hundreds of years.
1688/89 bill of rights was the next big document
Never think of or get the English Monarchy confused with the Monarch be they King, Queen or Protector or the Royal Dynasty/Family. That may seem impossible, mad or oxymoronic but it is the truth. We have "removed" Monarchs quite frequently when they displeased us - Edward VIII (1936, that recent), James II (1688), obviously Charles I (1649) but also Richard II, Edward II (a red hot poker up his fundament) Richard III... the list goes on. And we removed the Royal House/Dynasty/Family of Plantagenet (York) in 1485 with the Tudors, Stuart in 1688 (although James II's daughters did remain as Mary II and Queen Anne) with The Dutch House of Orange and then in 1714 with the Hanoverians. The Monarchy continued except for the brief interlude of The Republic 1649-1660 and was found to be indispensable and brought back in a much reformed way in Charles II. This should never be forgotten as it is possible that should the current Prince of Wales become Charles III or whatever and have tendencies towards "the divine right of Kings" he and the House/Dynasty of Windsor (in reality Battenberg-Saxe Coburg-Gotha - they changed their name to Windsor in 1917) can be removed and replaced.
Funfact: Cromwell even outlawed christmas.
This video is using the incorrect image for Buckingham. The Buckingham image was Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham who died in approx. 1521 ??
Could you react to the biographic video on Subutai, Ghenkis Khan's dog of war next? Probably my fav
With regards to Cromwell behaviour in Ireland, the historian Simon Schama argues that, the latest historical research suggests that Oliver Cromwell was not a genocidal maniac, or a war criminal, but in Schama's opinion he was an English Puritan bigot, who thought that the English had every right to occupy and colonise Roman Catholic Ireland.
Great reaction. Do not fret it, buddy. You probably have a better handle on these matters than large numbers of English citizens your age or less. As more significant dates are added to the timeline, the important ones that were there already must diminish.
However, if you ever do get to the old country and have a few days spare, get across to Ireland. That is the Republic of Ireland, not the bit at the top righthand corner. Gently (very gently) poke and prod and you will find that Cromwell's unpopularity still burns strong and hot. You would think he had only just left yesterday, rather than 370 years ago.
As for digging up people you wanted to seriously disrespect, your surprise is... well... surprising. They did not have television in those days.
Oh, and you better believe the casualty/ death toll in the civil war(s). Nearly double the percentage of population than World War I - with much more primitive equipment.
hey can you react to Soviet Storm WW2 in the east by starmediaen? really high quality multi part documentary all about the eastern front of ww2
Cromwell was MP For Huntingdon 1628!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Learned all this at school! Think I'll go make a crepe! (I'd love to see YOU try to do that).
England needs another Cromwell now more than ever. Instead, we have clowns in charge of the nation.
There are already enough religious bigots in the Tory party. Most of them Brexiteers who rake in massive "off the books" donations from the American and Russian far right.
Yep that was Caligula,later Henry v111 did similar.
The interregnum is just strange.
Cromwell had the opportunity to do a full French revolution. I wonder how our history would have been different if we had had a Republic 400 years ago.
Most of the American dead in their civil war was down to diease and hunger only a small percentage of those numbers succumbed to the fighting.
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
The English monarch lost the right to levy taxes, without the consent of what would evolve to become Parliament, in the thirteenth century, with the signing of Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta wasnt a big deal to the ordinary people, however it was the first charter EVER in history to limit a Kings rule and became the the first so called "bill of rights" there fore the dye was cast for increasing excursions into the concept of a democratic Government system. These systems, formed out over time and out of experience were later ignored in the New World as the USA developed its's own system which has led to the chaotic and unfair way it now elects representatives and rules the country, not at the will of the people and not for the people but for the will of the party. The US could co worse than change it's political model and the recent elections in Alaska should be a mirror for thought that this is the way to go.
The Royalists when king Charles the 2nd was reinstated as king, committed Christian desecration of Cromwells grave by digging up his dead corpse & then executing his dead body.
Charles the 1st got what he deserved & he would most certainly have executed the parliamentarians had he won the civil war.
The most English ever killed in any war they ever fought. Tragic!
Sorry to express my opinion on this, but I genuinely feel that the United States has still to reach this ponit. You are dragging it out. Eventually, you will seek a Head of State that is non-politically appointed/ affiliated/supported. Seems the inevitable way to go?
Oliver Cromwell was infact not Oliver Cromwell his real name was Oliver Williams and his family were Welsh and I'm related to him and most people in Wales with the name Williams are related to him his father was sir Henry Williams
1st English Civil War? i can name at least least 2 previous ones
I have read extensively on Cromwell over many years. I am convinced he was a religious bigot who happened to be a very fine military general. His slaughter of 3000 Irish rebels, with many of his army refusing to do the murders, is a slur on his reputation to this day. I am afraid I do not respect the man.
Weren't most of them bigots back then? It's no excuse, however his son-in-law Henry Ireton was worse and is probably the one that committed the slaughter in Ireland.
Very gay reasoning to not respect him. Every great military general has committed atrocities. To conquer an entire nation one must be ruthless. What do you want him to do, blow them a kiss, when they were slaughtering English settlers? And rebelling
@@fyrdman2185 This is an offensive sexual slur. You have no right to be sexually abusive to people, whether they are gay or not. Not only do I disrespect Cromwell for his puritan bigot, but I am appalled so religious a man was so hypocritically murderous. I find little reason to respect you as well.
@@antoineduchamp4931 oh boo hoo, everyone's a bigot, who cares. Cromwell made England great, i don't care what methods he employed to achieve that greatness. He was a great Conqueror, just like Ceasar, Alexander and Napoleon. And they all committed atrocities towards their enemies. Grow some bolllox
@@fyrdman2185 And I read that he was very strict with his soldiers, if any of them raped a woman he was hung, I was Catholic now atheist. he treated the Catholic residents of Drogheda badly but you must remember that the people of Drogheda earlier had driven their Protestant neighbours right intob the river Boyne and drowned 300 of them men women even babies, I used hate Cromwell from the history I was taught but delved further and now admire him
Most people in the UK see Cromwell as a bit of a git.
He believed in religious freedom as long as people had the same religious beliefs as him.
He believed in religious freedom as long as they wsrent otting to overthrow their country.
Not technically correct saying it was the end of Civil War in Britain. There were 2 Jacobite uprisings in the 1700's which were basically Civil Wars.
It was the end of civil wars in England. The Jacobite '15 and '45 were Scottish affairs. There have been a number of wars in Ireland, Irish Rebellion 1796, 1916-20 the Irish War of Independen, (also the Irish civil war), and last but not least the recent Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-1998). BTW "recent Troubles" was also the phrase used for the conflicts of the 1640s in the three nation's "Indemnity and Oblivion Acts" of the early 1660s which drew a legal veil over the conflicts.
@@firstlast7052 They weren’t really as the last Jacobite rebellion reached Derby.
There were English and Scots on both sides. Fair enough the battles were mostly in Scotland 🏴 but the whole purpose was to overthrow the British throne
You’re looking good for 364 years of age Connor - I take it that you moisturise?😂😂
CROMWELL IS A HERO
i see him as a game changer , an awful tyrant of the people but a means to the future .
The presenter of this should not give up his day time job.
It has to be remembered that Cromwell could easily have taken the Crown for himself he was even offered it he refused I think on two occasions, He’s seen by many as at least an anti hero but by others he’s seen as a Tyrant worse than the king, I think he had to be tough and tyrannical to hold onto power otherwise the civil war was all for nothing.
He did take the crown in all but name. Her gave him self the title of Lord Protector, which he decided should be a hereditary position. Sounds like a king to me.
@@KernowWarrior Partially correct. There is no proof that he decided on his son to succeed himself? Some said he did, more said he nominated his son-in-law Charles Fleetwood, both only verbally and others said he nominated no-one. What is true, is that Parliament gave the position to Richard not his father.
@@johnp8131 I think you getting confused, his son succeeded him, but was removed by Parliament and the military because of lack of support.
@@KernowWarrior No, not confused. I know much of the history on this can be contradictory due to propaganda. Also it is true that his son succeded him. However as I just said! There is no documentary evidence, that Oliver asked Parliament to have Richard succeed him. Just hearsay! But, Parliament, upon the death of Cromwell, were unsure what to do and therefore pressured Richard into taking it. If you wish to debate this further, take it up with Stuart Orme, the curator of the Cromwell Museum or just check out his channel.
From another Cornishman that now lives in the other St Ives in Cambs.