MovieChat Forums > Cromwell (1970) Discussion > Did Cromwell become a bigger Dictator th...

Did Cromwell become a bigger Dictator than King Charles I ?

posted 19 years ago by Kingum2341
14 replies | jump to latest

I think he did. In the end he actually raised taxs even more than under the King, Set a up a much more controlling goverment, Took away many of the rights of Irishmen,overturned Parliment yet again, and finally became in all but name a King with absalute power. In the end he did reform the goverment but he also was a very harsh ruler in many ways.

I am no englishman, I'm from the US. I liked this film a lot. I think showed both sides of the issue very well. Cromwell and Charles (both terrific actors and now both dead) both were shown to have deffects and also virtues. In the end it's sort of unsure what the victory acomplished. But civil war is good in some ways. Our Civil War brought out much good even though it had much sorrow as well.

Anyway, long live Merry England!

[–] jansimb 19 years ago

You're correct, Cromwell did become a virtual dictator. And like most dictatorships there was no provision for a succesor. His son Richard Cromwell became Lord Protector of the Commonwealth after Olivers death in 1658. Richard was an ineffectual ruler and Parliament invited Prince Charles (Charles I eldest son) back to the throne in 1660. And that was the end of Englands Republican experiment.

Charles II never attempted to become an absolute monarch as his father had done and kept most of Cromwells' parliamentry reforms.Cromwell also laid the foundations of the British Army, introducing the regimental system that still exists in modified form.However, as you say, his treatment of the Irish was despicable and this was the origin of the troubles in Ulster today.

I like the film itself. It isn't completly accurate historicaly but it does give a fairly balenced account. Richard Harris is okay as Cromwell, Alec Guiness is superb as Charles I, and Timothy Dalton is a good Prince Rupert (yes he really was as reckless as that).

There are several other films on the English Civil War. Try 'To Kill a King' if you're particularly interested.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mycroftson 18 years ago

the kicker is that the Parlimentry forces and the New Model army were fighting to rid the country of an autonomous leader.

Cromwell just betrayed those hopes.

[–] Koncorde 18 years ago

Charles was not offered 'absolute' monarchy. He was invited back because the alternative was to 'elect' a prime minister with no head of state or figurehead. Charles return lent legitimacy to Parliament, nothing more.

With regards to the first post and taxes - taxes are not the mode of a tyrant. His taxes paid for university's, schools, roads, the navy, the army etc and set Britain up as a European power (having previously under James, Charles etc practically 'lost' all bargaining power).

In addition the 'origin' of troubles in Ulster pre-date Cromwell by quite a margin.

[–] ROBERT-826 18 years ago

your war didnt do much to help the blacks though the north was just as bad as the south,even today bush shows us how black people are still second class !.

[–] garywolfboy 18 years ago

He chased away the Irish, never a bad thing in Britain.

[–] gypsyjoe 18 years ago

Not in England he doesn't.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Koncorde 18 years ago

Actually the reason there were so many Irish navvies around is the fact they were cheap labour.

[–] garywolfboy 18 years ago

they have been the ruin of britain in the last couple of centuries

[–] Alex_H_86 17 years ago

Any English ruler that goes after Ireland, France and Scotland is all right in my book, thanks to Cromwell, the great and glorious legacy of the prodistant church lives on in all it's glory.

[–] youngian67 17 years ago

Ironically he embroiled the country in a war with Holland our closest protestant neighbour.

[–] Errington_92 8 years ago

Ironically he embroiled the country in a war with Holland our closest Protestant neighbor.

It was not for religious reasons, rather for supremacy of the seas. This was for trading purposes, leading to the Commonwealth spreading their colonial influence in the Caribbean.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

[–] padfootreincarnated 16 years ago

Hey, Aussie, for someone apparently so enamoured of England, you sure can't spell. It's PROTESTANT. Like protest. Anyway. Waht do you have against those countries, anyway?