Could Oliver Cromwell Be Considered As Tyrant?

The definition of a 'tyrant' in the context of your 17th Century ruler is a ruler who demonstrates unreasonable use of authority, uses harsh discipline and oppression, and furthers the personal need of themselves before that of their country. John Milton composed that 'a tyrant is he who regarding neither legislations nor the common good, reigns limited to himself and his faction'. Until the execution of Charles I, the to rule originated from God and the 'Divine Right of Kings', so a 'tyrant' would probably not have the right expert to rule as prior to the rule of Cromwell. Cromwell did at times action tyrannically during his rule, but and then the point of enhancing the constitution of the united states, rather than to help expand his own hobbies. As Mind of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell started out uniting the realms of the United Kingdom, Great britain, Scotland and Ireland, extended on England's colonies, created a new style of land possession, ruled from 1656 as 'Lord Protector', abolished the Anglican Cathedral, arguably ruled with a armed forces dictatorship through the military and major generals, and fiscally exhausted the country's resources by enough time he passed away in 1658. Although his policies were abolished upon Charles II's repair, their reintroduction towards the end of the century make Cromwell's rule essential in creating fundamental change to the monarch/parliament romantic relationship that can be seen by the end of the century.

At Charles' trial following the Civil Wars, Charles was being tried out for treason and tyranny to make war on his subjects. Charles refused to accept the expert of the Court because of his belief in the Divine Right which supposed his actions were only answerable to God. As Charles refused to comply with the Court, the court saw this as an entrance of guilt and 62 judges were to decide whether he should be performed, Cromwell being one of these. At this stage in his career, Cromwell could not have been operating to further his own passions by having the king performed, as for no reason could he have anticipated that removing Charles would lead to his future success in becoming Mind of the Commonwealth. Cromwell himself said, 'if any man whatsoever hath continued the look of deposing the ruler, and disinheriting his property; he should be the greatest traitor and rebel in the world', however the proven fact that Cromwell were required to make this affirmation at all, shows that Cromwell understood that he was doing wrong, making him look like behaving tyrannically. 'But Cromwell is also reputed to get said, 'we will take off his mind with the crown upon it' ', exhibiting that he wished Charles inactive. A tyrant is also somebody who shows unreasonable use of power, and Cromwell more than voiced his thoughts and opinions when the judges were attaining their verdict, 'Cromwell himself used pressure to get signatures, allowing little or nothing to avoid him when Ingoldsby emerged to sign; Cromwell ran at him across the room, and taking him by the hands, dragged him to the table presented him down and laughing loudly, position the pen between his hands and obligated him to track his name along with his own side'. This forceful behaviour is tyrannical as it demonstrates how Cromwell abused his position on the jury to dominate the courtroom to ensure Charles' execution. Fraser goes on to claim 'the accusations of arbitrary tyranny, once levelled with some element at the Ruler, could now be put firmly at the door who had done him fatality', conflicting the talk Cromwell made to defend the right to trial the Ruler. But Alymer argues, 'the trial and execution were intentionally made as solemn as is feasible, with the greatest semblance on track judicial proceedings'. Cromwell may not have been openly furthering his own passions, but his brutality and oppressive use of authority to acquire signatures for Charles' loss of life warrant make him look like a tyrant. Cromwell thought betrayed by Charles after the Second Civil warfare broke out and found the only path for calmness to be restored would be with the loss of life of Charles to establish a new constitution of federal, so was performing tyrannically in his use of electricity, but was to advantage England in the long-run.

Invading Ireland was not a tyrannical action in the framework of the 17th century, and it is not the invasion for why Cromwell is most criticised, it was essential to prevent England from the royalist hazard. It is more his lack of remorse for the Catholics which were murdered, 'Cromwell's satisfaction in the Drogheda massacre makes a particularly unpleasant event'. Around 3000 royalists, Catholics and clergymen were killed which gives him the name of an 'tyrant' by historians; 'Cromwell's obvious entertainment of the carnage was approved by his contemporaries and has been condemned by posterity as his most odious attribute'. Cromwell justified the attack for being in the laws and regulations of warfare, as well as doing God's duty by murdering the 'wretches', motivating other cities to surrender immediately, saving lives over time. The attack was welcomed at home as Ireland could now be helped bring under the same civility as Great britain, 'Cromwell was a soldier of genius; it was as a victorious general that he previously incurred the concentration of general population attention after himself; and it was by armed forces strength that he had been able to bring about the politics motives he felt right'. Lecky argues that the program was 'the key cause of the politics and public evils of Ireland'. Cromwell was certainly demonstrating his newly acquired authority, and was punishing the Irish for being Royalist Catholics, and his ongoing punishment and fees on the Irish meant he will need to have been behaving tyrannically as he was using his power oppressively to impose harsh discipline. This dislike of Catholics under Cromwell's rule made it almost impossible for Catholics to have any source of power in Great britain. The reign of James II 1685-9 was dominated by Wayne' idea in Catholicism so was deposed by William of Orange who signed the Declaration of Protection under the law, proclaiming that no Catholic could run the united states. Cromwell's harsh abuse of the Catholics in Ireland sometimes appears as tyrannical because he used great pressure to impose his expert and the severe nature of his hatred of the Catholics without remorse for his actions allow historians to label Cromwell as a tyrant. But his actions in Ireland of suppressing the Catholics were to enable England to truly have a peaceful constitution as it was preventing the Royalist danger.

Scotland called Charles II Ruler of Scotland, Britain and Ireland upon Charles I's execution, which posed a risk to Cromwell. Much like Ireland, Cromwell invaded Scotland to protect Great britain from royalist opposition. But Cromwell was much more lenient in the Scottish routine than he was with the Irish. The Irish were seen as barbarous Catholics who had been a menace to contemporary society. The Scottish were not seen by Cromwell as uncivilised, alternatively 'misguided Protestants, caught up by the Royalist get-togethers, not portraying the correct word of God'. The war in Scotland was unplanned, whereas the Irish was always part of Cromwell's regime, which raises the idea that although Cromwell's motives were the same: to get rid of the Royalist danger, his methods in securing England from this threat was completely different. Cromwell regretfully dispatched his army to the north wanting that religious factors and other issues could be talked out, alternatively than fought out such as Ireland. Scotland fell at the Battle of Hamilton 1650 and Cromwell got conquered another country to increase what he began to build in to the UK. Historians concur that the overall settlement in Ireland and Scotland had not been completely what Cromwell acquired hoped, 'it was never accepted as a permanency by more than a little minority in Scotland', 'the great and idealistic ambitions of Cromwell for Scotland and Ireland were thwarted, he continued to be the conqueror as opposed to the liberator his routine was endured somewhat than adored'. Cromwell's encounters in Scotland are not thought to be tyrannical as he prevented using make and didn't punish the Scots like he did the Irish; the Scots were able to escape the fees and punishment which the Irish faced because the Scots weren't Catholics. Instead, he made a peaceful alliance, thus not acting tyrannically in Scotland. So it is Cromwell's activities alternatively than his motives for invading Scotland which will make him seem less tyrannical than his encounters with Ireland, as the motives were the same: to eliminate the royalist risk, but his genuine remorse for invading Scotland make him appear to be operating less tyrannically than in Ireland.

In 1655, Cromwell introduced eleven Major Generals in 1655 to command line the army, who were responsible for secure deposit against plots from Royalists, and supervise local government authorities. Later in to the guideline of the Major Generals, they began to intervene in the work of JPs, such as the licensing of inns and the suppression of sports activities and gambling. Cromwell justified this for the sake of interior security as this was where insurgent conferences could take place, not because he was an oppressive kill-joy like he is commonly interpreted as, 'pointless entertainment was frowned upon', and folks related the halting of pastimes to oppressive Puritanism. The Major Generals were brought to an end under the Protectorate as Cromwell acquired notice the unpopularity of these, and the increasing unpopularity of himself, they 'displayed a armed service dictator which added to the animosity'. This decision to remove the Major Generals can be seen as tyrannical as it implies that he needed the support of the military to ensure his security. Using the discontent over the Major Generals, Cromwell was not able to keep them if it was going to lose him further support, Cromwell could only push people so far into being 'Godly Puritans' before people would revolt. The Treason Work and Engagement Work in 1650 designed all adults needed to take an oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth and accept the House of Commons to be supreme specialist. This made certain conformity and eradicated the threat of Royalists, making Cromwell's government more powerful from the risk of being overthrown, in some ways making Cromwell appear tyrannical as we were holding elements of a dictatorship to guarantee conformity among his people. But having Treason Laws was not a fresh rule to ensure conformity so this must not be a reason for him to be labelled a tyrant. 'The bayonets of the New Model Army placed Cromwell in ability thereafter, while his Major Generals came down like a lot of bricks on anyone who stepped out of brand. ' Alymer disagrees, 'Cromwell didn't become a armed service dictator and subject Britain to the guideline of eleven petty, local tyrants'. The combination of the military services together with the Major Generals, and regulations accepting the House of Commons as supreme power created in a few ways a state of terror to enforce conformity among his people. This is a tyrannical movement as Cromwell proven an unreasonable use of his authority, using severe punishments for non compliance, to ensure conformity, creating the basis of a military dictatorship, but the reasoning of the was to avoid Royalist risks, the come back of Royalists would create political confusion which would have to be averted for the constitution of Britain to move forward.

Under the Humble Petition and Advice, Cromwell was offered the subject of 'King' by parliament. It needed Cromwell months to reject the offer of 'King', mainly due to the pressure of the military who had been strong Republicans. Cromwell was wise enough to know he needed the support of the military rather than provoke revolt, implying that Cromwell was being handled by the army, rather than vice versa. Cromwell also recognized that if he accepted the subject, Britain, as well as Scotland and Ireland wouldn't normally understand him as King. Gardiner argues, 'it is doubtful whether Cromwell accepted the subject could have disarmed an individual enemy', recommending that by this time around, the crown was just an object and Cromwell had not been performing tyrannically as he was effectively 'king' prior to the offer was even made. Another factor influencing Cromwell's decision was the advice of Lambert, 'Lambert was perhaps expecting that he'd be Cromwell's successor on his death, so encouraged him to avoid such a everlasting title'. But if Cromwell only turned down the position of Ruler because of pressure from others, then he was arguably performing tyrannically as he was lured by the offer, thus furthering his own pursuits. Wayne and Charles I were both great believers of the Divine Right, so had the right to rule by God, but parliament possessed officially asked Cromwell to rule the country, giving him the same right. This event emphasises the value of the changing role of parliament, they invited Cromwell to rule. That is repeated later in the century, in 1660, parliament invited Charles II to do something as king and re-establish the system of the monarchy, and again by 1689, parliament asked William of Orange to invade Britain to rule the country with Mary. Cromwell said, 'I desire not to keep my devote this government an hour longer than I may preserve Great britain in its privileges', and that he didn't look like storing power for himself and would have left or remained depending on what parliament asked of him. But, Parliament acquired offered the positioning to Cromwell, so if Parliament was speaking the words of people in offering the Crown, although parliament was not always representative, then Cromwell acquired the right to rule, so was not operating tyrannically in agreeing to the subject of 'Lord Protector'. This influence of parliament demonstrates it was parliament's decision, rather than Cromwell's use of authority for him to be Head of the Commonwealth, so was not acting tyrannically. Cromwell accepted the name of 'Lord Protector' rather than 'Ruler', but was tackled by the Heads of Says of other countries as 'his highness', inherited Charles' royal things, migrated into Whitehall and Hampton Court, and his boy been successful him in 1658. 'Cromwell became a 'dictator', but it was not from choice. Incidents got their own way of pushing him to the fore and ultimately to the head of affairs'. Cromwell certainly acted such as a King and possessed all the privileges that a monarch experienced, but by naming himself 'Lord Protector', made him appear hypocritical for executing Charles and made him unpopular amidst the folks of the nations he ruled. Recognizing the name of 'Lord Protector' was not tyrannical alone; it was the activities after recognizing the title where he acted like a king making him look like operating tyrannically.

The Rump parliament was dissolved in 1653 after it evolved plans for a general election to a piecemeal by-election, 'it was the treachery of the unexpected unplanned morning's meeting, unlike the night's prior agreements, which acquired persuaded him that the Rump all along had not changed its areas'. They were reluctant to hold elections as the participants of the Rump acquired no objective of transferring their power to a successor as this would returning royalists, and was hesitant in functioning and introducing policies, with 'periodic flurries of activity, inspired usually by Cromwell', 'there was extreme slowness of the Rump to come quickly to any decision about a constitutional negotiation The Rump was also very poor with other home reforms'. Cromwell said to the Rump, 'dissettlement and division, discontent and dissatisfaction, as well as real dangers of the complete, have been more multiplied within these five a few months of your sitting than in a few years before!'. It had been Cromwell's decision to dissolve the Rump, but was under much pressure from conventional Army Officials to take action, showing that he had been managed by the military, somewhat than him controlling them. This also highlights that Cromwell was arguably becoming a armed service dictator as he wished to keep the military on his side, and he cannot control the country minus the support of the military. But considering the context of the period, parliaments were often dissolved for extended periods of time; Wayne I dissolved parliament for 10 years, and Charles I's dissolution of parliament has been labelled as the '11 Years Tyranny' which drove Great britain to Civil Warfare. Compared to Charles I, Cromwell's dissolution of parliament is a lot less significant as it was for a much minimal period of time, so was less tyrannical than Charles I and using Milton's definition of a tyrant, 'he who reigns only for himself and his faction', Cromwell was doing no such thing as he proven the Barebones parliament whilst aiming to reassemble the Protectorate Parliament. Charles never established such an option. So in the context of the time, where monarchs dissolved parliaments for extended periods of time, Cromwell's dissolution of the Rump for 8 a few months can be thought to be no more tyrannical than the activities of the market leaders before him, specially the tyranny of Charles I, and he dissolved the Rump so the state of administration could be superior.

Throughout the 100 yr context, it could be seen that through every ruler, they are more compliant with parliament and working with something of government where they have limited forces within the constitution of England, starting most significantly with the guideline of Cromwell. The role of parliament becomes more important through every ruler, to the idea that parliament invited Charles II to restore the monarchy in 1660. This is due to the civil conflict and the growing need for parliament speaking the people's tone, showing Cromwell's value in creating a far more democratic Britain. The changing role of parliament is vital in understanding the context of tyranny in the 17th century, as with the growing importance and expert of parliament through the later 50 percent of the century, compliance and conformity is enforced through regulations through parliament speaking the tone of voice of people that was instigated by Cromwell. But historians dispute over his legacy, 'he made blunders in his parliamentary experiments. . . His knowledge of funding and trade was slight, his suspicion of Catholics intense, his behaviour to the Irish or Scots affairs Angolcentric; and he absolutely didn't create an enduring republican construction for his kid to continue'. Fraser disagrees, 'Cromwell proven what sort of man could climb from a modest inheritance, and by his own extraordinary characteristics live to defy the best in the world'. Having ability does not make a person a tyrant, so agreeing to the subject of 'Lord Protector' will not automatically make Cromwell a tyrant just because the position offered him more electric power. It is what a person chooses regarding their nominated power which determines if they're a tyrant. Cromwell's works which may be seen as oppressive make him a tyrant in his activities, such as his mistreatment of electricity at Charles' trial and his insufficient remorse over the invasion of Ireland, but Cromwell didn't misuse his position of electricity just because he previously authority, nor was he performing to help expand his own passions, he acted tyrannically to improve the government establishment of Great britain and keep it secure. Any oppressive activities were justified by Cromwell to be for the better of the united states, to make a Godly land and halt Royalist risks, and any serves of tyranny were imposed to ensure conformity. Even though the republic collapsed shortly after his loss of life, many of the policies Cromwell initiated were reintroduced later in the century because of parliament's growing impact. Cromwell did at times work tyrannically, so he was a tyrant, however when he did, he observed it to be benefiting the federal government constitution of Great britain, and was significantly less tyrannical than rulers before him.

Word Count up 3, 292

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)